5087 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

@ Obadiah:
 

Obadiah wrote...
 
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.

 
You are exactly, one-hundred percent, unquestionably right, Obadiah. And that is precisely the point that I am trying to make. Such decisions should be and must remain hard. Indeed, all but impossible.
 
My emphatic response is that it should always be the moral duty of fiction to never cheapen such decisions by making them an easy way out, or excusing them in the manner we see presented here. It disturbs me greatly that we should be all exploring a 'heroic' text in which the final message is that the only way to succeed in a complex circumstance is to surrender to some kind of moral horror. That 'genocide' is okay sometimes; that eugenics are acceptable if the alternative is more icky; brainwashing is better than death. Sure. Why not?
 
This text traps us in a false hypothetical premise by saying: 'Well, you have to do one of these reprehensible things, so which unforgivable violation do you like best?' It compels you to measure unethical acts. But all are contemptible. All are vile. And ranking which one is more palatable than the others only serves to lessen the egregious insult to our morality that each represents. Being forced to validate one as 'better' than another is to slide uncomfortably toward an acceptance of such atrocities that I find truly disgusting in such a previously hopeful text.
 
This is not 'artistic'; it is ugly and irresponsible, and only serves to lessen the 'difficulty' of genuinely conceiving of such horrors – something that you rightly point out should haunt our souls.
 

Modifié par drayfish, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:57 .

[drayfish]

@ Obadiah:
 

Obadiah wrote...
 
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.

 
I don't think these analogies can be said to be at all applicable in this circumstance, and somewhat confuse the argument. In each one of these examples you are implying that the intent of the original object has been intentionally and irreparably altered for the worse in its usage. Microsoft did not create Windows for hackers (nor to devastate a race); Bioware did create the forum to give fans like us a voice (which at no point subjugates or brainwashes anything); and Mordin is reversing something he believes to be a crime, not furthering its use.
 
The reason that I utilised your original atomic bomb example is because, like the Crucible, it is a weapon designed to extinguish life (or perform two other acts of inflicted warfare). By using it Shepard is fulfilling its expressly stated purpose, and thereby validating it as a tool. 
 

 
I think I do now see where the disconnect in our argument lies, however: our distinctions between life and life.
 
Fundamentally, you appear to see the defining moment of the narrative to be Shepard's willingness to do what needs to be done in order to survive, to stop the Reaper threat and ensure the perpetuation of life in the universe. If a choice needs to be made in order to keep existing, it is worth any sacrifice. In contrast, I see the moment of heroism as being centred in the action of retaining the morality and (for lack of a better term in a fiction about galactic unity) the humanity that has defined the fiction up to this point - what we have been living for. 
 
Again, this is only my perspective, but I believe that it is the nature of that 'life' that should be cherished and preserved, not simply the act of existing. Shepard, in my reading, shows her heroism by refusing to take part in such a debate over the 'best' atrocity with which to 'save' the universe; because for me, the moment in which the hero taints themself and their universe with an act of evil, the valour that has to that point fuelled the narrative is irreparably violated. From then on the story cannot be a tale of heroism, for if one must destroy the defining elements of our identity and beliefs (freedom; equality; autonomy) in order to 'live', then what has been sacrificed ultimately nullifies that surviving life anyway.
 
I believe that (in fiction at the very least) ideals are worth saving, are worth cherishing. If everything becomes a sliding scale of compromise then where can we even draw the line for the moment in which the hero stands up and says, 'No, I will not bend to this oppression any further'? 
 
A fiction like the ending of Mass Effect 3 speaks to a kind of moral resignation that I find profoundly sad. To me it explicitly states that we can't win through faith in human values, so we must physically and ideologically dominate our enemies – kill, change, or control them, in precisely the way the Reapers have terrorised the universe for countless generations.
 
I do not believe the happy final product of each ending can wipe away the vulgarity of the choice that leads to it. My problem with the endings is, much as you suggest, that it forces us to agree with a central premise that there are times when 'the ends justify the means', and as I've mentioned, I do not subscribe to this fallacy.
 
Indeed, when I actually allow myself to think about it at any length I find that whole premise irredeemably horrifying. 
 
Because why? Why should that be true? Why should it be said that the ends justify the means? When do they ever?
 
Throughout this fiction we are compelled to explore the innumerable ways in which actions that were, at one time, believed to be 'justified', are later proved to be far more complex and ominous than their originators had mistakenly presumed. When the Salarians and Turians castrated the Krogan, they weren't unquestionably morally justified. Jack was raised in a torturous lab in which children were repeatedly brutalised in order to create a better weapon, because it was believed that having that weapon was 'worth' the sacrifice. When the Quarians freaked out and started murdering any Geth that questioned their own existence, they were doing it for the 'greater good'. Indeed, Saren and the Illusive Man thought that utterly perverting the independence of sentient beings was acceptable because the only other option was surrender, and we all saw how that played out... For that matter, the Reapers themselves thought they were morally justified because they were doing it all for us all along.
 
The theme of this entire series has been about consequences. Every race across the galaxy has believed at one point or another that they were only intruding on another's rights because they could see the bigger picture, and that ultimately the ends would justify the means. But at every opportunity we are compelled to see the consequential ugliness of that sentiment, and the slippery slope that it presents.
 
What suddenly makes Shepard so special, so different, that the writers want us to believe she can step above and beyond the rest of the universe and decide such a monstrous thing? 
 
It shocks me that Bioware's ultimate message seems to be: 'Sure, all the other times that people have tried to dominate or influence other cultures is wrong, and horribly, morally suspect. But it's okay if you do it, 'cause you're, you know, the hero. Sure your skin crawled a little when you heard the Illusive Man's plans, and his ridiculous argument that just because he was willing to use his enemy's tactics didn't mean they weren't still his enemy... but you're way better than him. It's cool if you use those tactics. Why wouldn't it be? You're Shepard. Even though you're meant to represent something, it's okay is you don't this one, this most important time.'

Modifié par drayfish, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:13 .

[SHARXTREME]

Pinax wrote...
Currently I come to think there was no vision at all as for the ME3 story shape, there were only some ideas "I would like to see...", "I wish we could add more..." and all this had to somehow stick together.

Yes, nicely formulated. It seems like trying to make the soup from stones and expecting that by adding different ingredients it will turn to gold. Literal alchemy. There was no vision and subsequent talk about "integrity" was incredibly funny.

@3DandBeyond
You are right that you can overdo certain things in art, but that's not really art, is it?
I paint myself, so I can agree that there can be a parallel to literature in layers(of paint or ideas), but I rather see it this way: If you need to redo some part by applying more layers over old ones, original vision changed (for better or worse) or there was not any vision to begin with.
It sounds more like "work in progress" or "subconscious writing", not like vision, art, let alone any kind of integrity.
Who was the lead writer? What was the original script? What did the lead writer said on the ending? (i refuse, logically, to believe that the same writer that wrote Krogan and Geth part of story is responsible for this disastrous ending)

Pinax mentioned da Vinci(and Michelangelo). He is the good(if not the best) example of vision and technique and meeting the deadlines. Imagine to live in that technologically limited era, to work with such primitive tools and materials and to'pull-off' such long-lived masterworks of art and architecture.
In this day and age it would take the work of 2 lifetimes, and it would not be remembered.
Today, the architecture is really "less is more, but bigger is even better " , paintings are mostly bizarre or plain copies or just design pieces. Music is re-interpretation and remix and literature is what it always was, only difference is that more people have access to pen and paper with less concentration and time.
When I think about that in times, long after da Vinci, in mid 20th century it took serious dedication, knowledge and technique to even mix the right colour with limited organic materials, and then today when you have synthetic materials(not analogy;reality) I just can't appreciate no amount of effort if there is no vision behind it.
You can learn the technique from old generations in school or YT, you can access the materials that your heart desires, you can even learn to use the psychological mechanism that will make the people to 'like' what you're doing, but without vision it's just "art in a can", or just "in a can".

That aside, I mostly prefer SF because I automatically presume that people that write SF stories have some kind of vision of future, opinion on society mechanisms and history, some inspiration and have some science and philosophy knowledge along with the technique to make coherent and logical story. (by 'logical' I mean logic that functions in the story). ME3 ending was a negative example of all that, it was like watching Andy Warhol painting over the Mona Lisa and calling it "artistic vision". Then adding some colors later and calling it "artistic integrity and additional clarity" just because he can and is in the position to "make art".
.

In some other news, good is that MP DLC's are free. That is a product with no artistic aspiration, but is the complete opposite of guys in charge of SP. MP guys refine and keep fresh the MP experience for the MP fans and customers. No philosophy or moral debates there
These other (can) keep their integrity. Who can guarantee to me, that they won't pull another Catalyst in their next story? At this point I think that they should put warnings on all three games that ending sucks. Really sucks.

[SHARXTREME]

drayfish wrote...
It shocks me that Bioware's ultimate message seems to be: 'Sure, all the other times that people have tried to dominate or influence other cultures is wrong, and horribly, morally suspect. But it's okay if you do it, 'cause you're, you know, the hero. Sure your skin crawled a little when you heard the Illusive Man's plans, and his ridiculous argument that just because he was willing to use his enemy's tactics didn't mean they weren't still his enemy... but you're way better than him. It's cool if you use those tactics. Why wouldn't it be? You're Shepard. Even though you're meant to represent something, it's okay is you don't this one, this most important time.'

Beautiful. Sadly, I did cut the rest of the text off, but this is so nicely composed and I agree completely. Who wants to be that kind of "hero"? Not my Shepard.
Legion: - "Thanks Shepard Commander, you helped us evolve"
Shepard: - " Sorry bro, I just used you to get geth support so I can fire the Crucible and annihilate you all"

Tali: "Thanks Shepard, we were wrong to fight the Geth and we can start new life on our homeworld in peace with the Geth"
Shepard: "I will kill the Geth the first time I must, and I would kill you Tali and Quarians also if Catalyst asks me to, you OK with that?"

Wrex: "From this day on, every krogan will know of Shepard, a true champion of krogan people"
Shepard: "Yeah, I'm that good. Listen bro, don't be surprised if you turn half-cyborg in the next few hours, it's inevitable."

TIM: "We must control the Reapers, it's the best chance for humanity to evolve"
Shepard: "You failed humanity..(First I will kill you...)... instead of joining me you were fighting me(..then I will control the Reapers.)
TIM: " I wish you could see the Earth as I do, Shepard. It's perfect"
Shepard: "No. I'm perfect".

Garrus: "Is this what it all comes down to? Brutal calculus of war. Sacrifice 10 billions there, so the 20 billions can live here?"
Shepard: "Then we're not better then the Reapers. I will not sacrifice the soul of our species to win " (but then again don't be surprised if I do exactly that in the next hour or two).

I honestly cannot agree with anyone who can find good solution, method, satisfaction or valid philosophy in the ending. It's only my opinion.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 19 juillet 2012 - 01:06 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Obadiah wrote...

@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.

If this is what you got from my posts, either you aren't reading very carefully or I'm not writing clealry. Let me try again.

Firstly, do you not believe there are people who do not feel the ending requires any kind of sacrifice? 

Secondly, do you understand that there are a large number of people whose ethical views do, in fact, endorse more authoritarian and ends-justify-the-means philosophies?


Your entire premise seems to be that the ending is good because it requires a difficult decision.

Now, what does it say about the ending that it requires little to no feeling of sacrifice for a huge number of people? If the point of the ending was to require sacrifice from everyone, to require a difficult decision, then you must logically admit that the ending was terrible.

It's a horrible failure because a huge number of people do not feel that it was a difficult decision that required sacrifice.

If we're operating from your premise that the decision must be difficult to be interesting, then the question isn't why did the writers demand sacrifice, it's why didn't they?

Imagine a game that is about, say, dwarves vs. elves. You can play as either race. At the end of the game, to save the world, you have to murder the dwarf king in cold blood. For anyone who is playing a dwarf, this might be an interesting, heart-wrenching decision. For anyone who is playing an elf who has been trying to murder the dwarf king in cold blood the entire game, it's nothing but sweet, sweet victory.

That is what the ending of Mass Effect 3 is.It's an ending that clearly and transparently rewards some players and some worldviews, while transparently punishing others. There is some degree of nuance for players who entered the game with a worldview smack dab in the center, but those players are a tiny minority.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:57 .

[SHARXTREME]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Imagine a game that is about, say, dwarves vs. elves. You can play as either race. At the end of the game, to save the world, you have to murder the dwarf king in cold blood. For anyone who is playing a dwarf, this might be an interesting, heart-wrenching decision. For anyone who is playing an elf who has been trying to murder the dwarf king in cold blood the entire game, it's nothing but sweet, sweet victory.

Valid analogy, but I saw it as playing the WWII game, where in the end, after so many bloodshed fighting the genocidal lunatic Hitler you get the chance to replace him or use his methods by the letter to exterminate or enslave not him but rather his army and nation along with some of your allies.

About sacrifices to win. I personally didn't want or have expected, that kind of mechanism in the end. Sacrifices were made on the road to the end. Catalyst mechanism is kind of ritualistic and primitive and does not belong in SF or ME for me. In the end Shepard is forced to sacrifice large amount of people, his soul, his very nature or everybody's very nature to "win" under Catalyst's conditions. Catalyst is sacrificing only himself, not his very nature in all 3 cases, but he does not view Shepard's decision or his terms as a sacrifice, because he doesn't view anybody valuable at all except his goal/purpose. He sees the natural order as chaos that needs to be bent, broken, reversed so that he can find it acceptable and it is unacceptable to comply to that reasoning.
Not even for slight renegade Shepard.
I can even argue that full Renegade Shepard shouldn't even reach the same ending as paragon Shepard. They shouldn't be even near in context.
ME can be viewed as white to grey(saving the council and DA didn't matter at all for EMS, Udina still replaces Anderson no matter what)
ME2 is real grey ending(tactics or purely personal beliefs or standards, and again it doesn't change anything significantly in ME3) and ME3 is complete black in the ending. It didn't help that they added some colors to options.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 19 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
Response to post 1: I'd have to agree, but since it seems to me a fair number of people had difficulty making this decision, I wouldn't characterize it as "easy" or "cheap". Certainly a decision which had no moral or ethical cost would be "cheap" and comfortable.

Response to post 2: I believe I understand your position, but (just my perspective) though I find such concerns worthy, I do find them more abstract and academic than practical. I do not subscribe to the argument that there are certain actions or tools that can never be justified or validated - certainly not in fiction where the stakes can be raised to such dizzying and unrealistic heights, as Mass Effect has done.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. It is a fallacy is to assert otherwise. There can be ugly consequences, and it is a slippery slope. However, the decisions can still be justified, and ugly consequences are not restricted to morally probablematic decisions.

With respect your characterization of what I think of "life" - my Shepard did not expect to survive the choice, the Crucible is fired so that the rest of civilization and life itself can continue without the intervention of the Reapers.

With respect to what I think of as Shepard's defining moment - I haven't really thought of it.

Modifié par Obadiah, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

I posted it elsewhere but think it makes sense here:

Well we bought our access to the ME world-I know I did by buying the games. The ME "world" was not constructed to be outside the realm of possibility. It stretched that with some things, but it also took some pains to try and make even the incredible plausible. That's not platonic ideal-that's creative writing 101. If I create a story of a family on a farm and the goal is sending a kid to college and the kid does odd jobs to earn money, I don't suddenly in the end have a clown from the planet Gotlotsamoney drop down and buy the kid a car, a new house, and a university. The stage was set in ME1 as the beginning of a series. By virtue of the fact that ME3 has a 3 in its name, it is an implicit promise (creative writing 101) that ME3 will follow within some leeway the "world" and lore of its predecessors. As the purchaser of other content within that "world" I bought ME3 based mostly on that promise-that ME3 would remaind true to its roots, that Shepard would achieve the goal, that I participated in the unfolding of events.

In ME1, you chase Saren who is trying to get to the citadel to set off the signal the protheans stopped the keepers from sending. You don't know why even necessarily that you are chasing Saren but you know he is working to help the reapers and that means he's doing bad things. He must be stopped and then when you find out why, you really know he must be stopped in order to keep the reapers from returning. The goal is impossible, but simple and against all odds it is carried out by people-reapers delayed, Saren dead, Sovereign destroyed, galaxy saved for now.

In ME2, the collectors have arrived as some advance party for the reapers-the reapers have been delayed due to a lot of things and perhaps humans have aroused their curiosity; no other race before has thwarted them in such a way-even destroying Sovereign, their vanguard. We feel that there will at some point (maybe in ME3) some context given for their interest in humans and obsession with Shepard. But one thing is clear-the reapers are coming and they are using the collectors to soften things up for their arrival. The goal is urgent and present-create a team (I hope, I hope these great people will be with me in ME3) and stop the collectors. In ME1, the reapers used the geth and you stopped them. In ME2, the reapers are using the collectors and the geth and you must stop them. Along the way, you learn more about indoctrination and you gain some information on dark energy-seems important (ME3 anyoone?) The goal is impossible but simple and it is achieved by people-collectors defeated, galaxy saved for now, Harbinger says the reapers will find a new way.

In ME3, the reapers are here. They must be stopped. But, it's impossible so let's just hold hands (This isn't about tactics and strategy. We stand together or we die). Ok so where did Shepard go? We can't defeat them so what-we form a chorus line? Uh, ME1 and 2-the goal is impossible. Shepard-nothing's impossible. ME3-the goal is impossible. Shepard-this is impossible. This is the same person that was brought back to life, the very definition of impossible, walking around and breathing. The game had nowhere to go but down from here as far as main plotline and main goal. Main goal: destroy the reapers-not stop them, because that means they still exist and that's not good enough. Solution: Nothing, they can't be destroyed. Enter major magical MacGuffin, the crucible. Well, thank the goddess because otherwise we had nothing. The tangential goal to meet the main goal is the creation of the crucible and the uniting of the galaxy to save Earth, presumably before saving the rest of the galaxy, well hopefully the rest of the galaxy, because the emphasis is on Earth, not the galaxy. But well the writers are human and so, yeah let's save Earth.

Crucible gets completed and finally the goal is in sight, you know the goal of ME1, saving Earth, so let's go take Earth back. Yay!!! Loved kicking Sovereign's butt, and smacking some Collector's behinds, this is going to be good. Impossible my eye, this is Mass Effect and that word does not exist, the fight is on!

Don't believe me read the words of the Bioware boss of Marketing, David Silverman, "I'd love to see this get into as many hands as possible. I think this is definitely the best chance we have in the series to really break out
and go truly blockbuster. It really is a natural entry point for people: giant alien race launches all-out war, you have to rally the forces of the universe to counter and see if you can take them down. That's pretty clear. You don't need to be like: 'Well, what about when I had this love affair?' It's like, who cares? It's all out war!" (There's so much that is so wrong in that one statement, but oh well today we fight).

So, the goal is there (destroy the reapers, strength through unity and diversity in place-we are good to go and have the best chance yet, so says Javik). Let's race and rub Harby's face in some good old-fashioned Earth dirt. Uh oh. Can't move. New gun. No clips. Where did my armor go? Great. I.....can........barely........................move. Big...........fight...........coming..........need...................my.................real.................gun. CRAP.

Ok, blah blah TIM, no won't control them, that's crazy. You look like you tried to become them. Must destroy that's the only way. Goal of 3 games, I mean my goal all along. Oh Anderson what's going on poopie head? Oh I shot you, sorry, now you're dead, double sorry, too bad. Who the hell are you? Oops sorry, bad manners, nice glow.

Original goal: destroy the reapers.
After meeting the lovechild of Shepard and the insane obsession with one poorly written boy, the new goal: stop the conflict between organics and synthetics.

Old wisdom in all ME games and even throughout ME3: Nothing is impossible even if the writers say it is-they are fooling you and you know that's what ME games are really about, achieving the impossible. This is the redeeming value or moral of the stories and redemption is a core concept throughout.
New wisdom at the end of ME and in relation to the main goal: When we say something is impossible we mean it is impossible. Why wouldn't you believe that idiot (reinforced if you reject or refuse Mr. Happy Glow Boy) when we said it was impossible? Stupid fans, don't understand the meaning of the word, apparently.

Old vision: goals are achieved in keeping with the values and morality of the Shepard you create and by people through perseverance and because of their belief in Shepard.
New vision: original goals well uh not really necessarily achieved. Hopefully, they are, but not if the choices aren't true, but if they are one might achieve the goal and who the hell cares about morals and values and people that believed in Shepard anyway? This is Shepard's choice, not theirs. And, anyway we have a new goal and any choice but reject will achieve that cooler goal, the kid's goal-you know Shepard's new BFF. Coool words, god Shepard. Coool look, green eyed cyborgs. Who cares about EDI and the geth, never were important and they certainly weren't people. What idiot fan ever got the idea that they mattered and why destroy the reapers anyway when it's so cool to see them fixing stuff? What were they expecting, a real ending that met the goals of 3 games? Stupid fans. F off and pick reject if you think you're smarter than us. We made a cool bunch of endings, that look really cool, because that's what the games were always all about-not the story, but looking cool. Oh, you wanna know if you took Earth back, well sure maybe sort of. The galaxy, sure it's out there. Who cares? God Shreaper looks and sounds cool. And green eyed Krogan babies-that is what this series was all about. Go ask your new friends, the reapers to have a look and see if Earth and the galaxy are ok.

Additions to this:

Old moral of the story: people can overcome adversity by working together and can throw off the shackles (control or assimilation) of the overseer in keeping with morality. The means justify the ends.
New moral of the story: uh no. You must agree with and either become the overseer, become one with the overseer, and/or abandon your morality. The ends totally always justify the means, and who cares about the ends anyway as long as they look cool. You are intellectual only when you stop thinking. It's not meant for you to understand it for it to be brilliant. You merely must experience it and agree that it is brilliant. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:47 .

[NorDee65]

robertthebard wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

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.

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

To quote "the needs of the many..." from ST (it was stated by Spock in
"Wrath of Khan", if I remember correctly) in this case is somewhat
misleading.

Spock says something like this as he is prepared to
sacrifice himself in order to save the Enterprise and its crew from
turning either into highly irradiated waste or an expanding plasma cloud
(can't remember which). He then proceeds to repair the damage and dies in the process. (That is pure paragon...)

However, had Kirk ordered
Spock to sacrifice himself for ship and crew, it would have painted Kirk
as an egotistical and uncaring son of a b***. (In my opinion: pure
renegade.)

In Shepard's case it is not enough to say that were
they asked, both EDI and the geth would agree to be sacrificed (if EDI
were present on the citadel, she might well hit Shep over the head and
make that sacrifice herself). But that is the point: even as Shepard is
ready to sacrifice herself "for the good of the many" she has no right
to impose this on anybody else. And if Shepard has been played as a
paragon she will/must refuse.

Both the geth and EDI have discovered the value of life - of their own life - during the course of the game. While it is certainly possible they might agree to die for the rest of the galaxy, it is not a given that they'd want to. That would be an assumption on the player's part, after all.

And even for the other two choices
this quote is not exactly spot on: even as Shepard sacrifices herself
(which could be considered a paragon action), the question arises: what
is the "good/need of the many"? (in control to be considerd sheep guarded by Reaper-Shepherds? in synthesis cyborgs without any hope of further evolution?).

While it is certainly possible that in real life this choice arises, I can certainly wait for it. And even though, it is "only a game", I could have done without this kind of choice. I want to enjoy playing games, darnit, not feel depressed about 4 lessons in futiliy.

[robertthebard]

SHARXTREME wrote...

drayfish wrote...
It shocks me that Bioware's ultimate message seems to be: 'Sure, all the other times that people have tried to dominate or influence other cultures is wrong, and horribly, morally suspect. But it's okay if you do it, 'cause you're, you know, the hero. Sure your skin crawled a little when you heard the Illusive Man's plans, and his ridiculous argument that just because he was willing to use his enemy's tactics didn't mean they weren't still his enemy... but you're way better than him. It's cool if you use those tactics. Why wouldn't it be? You're Shepard. Even though you're meant to represent something, it's okay is you don't this one, this most important time.'

Beautiful. Sadly, I did cut the rest of the text off, but this is so nicely composed and I agree completely. Who wants to be that kind of "hero"? Not my Shepard.
Legion: - "Thanks Shepard Commander, you helped us evolve"
Shepard: - " Sorry bro, I just used you to get geth support so I can fire the Crucible and annihilate you all"

Tali: "Thanks Shepard, we were wrong to fight the Geth and we can start new life on our homeworld in peace with the Geth"
Shepard: "I will kill the Geth the first time I must, and I would kill you Tali and Quarians also if Catalyst asks me to, you OK with that?"

Wrex: "From this day on, every krogan will know of Shepard, a true champion of krogan people"
Shepard: "Yeah, I'm that good. Listen bro, don't be surprised if you turn half-cyborg in the next few hours, it's inevitable."

TIM: "We must control the Reapers, it's the best chance for humanity to evolve"
Shepard: "You failed humanity..(First I will kill you...)... instead of joining me you were fighting me(..then I will control the Reapers.)
TIM: " I wish you could see the Earth as I do, Shepard. It's perfect"
Shepard: "No. I'm perfect".

Garrus: "Is this what it all comes down to? Brutal calculus of war. Sacrifice 10 billions there, so the 20 billions can live here?"
Shepard: "Then we're not better then the Reapers. I will not sacrifice the soul of our species to win " (but then again don't be surprised if I do exactly that in the next hour or two).

I honestly cannot agree with anyone who can find good solution, method, satisfaction or valid philosophy in the ending. It's only my opinion.

Let me start by saying that the "Shepard" you present here wouldn't be talking to Wrex.  Wrex would be dead on Virmire.  I do love, however, how people can sit in a chair, in a nice comfortable home, and make character judgements about what is needed to win a war.  I can only presume that none of them have ever had any experience with it, other than what they saw on the news, or maybe from peace marches.  This isn't a "buy beer, or groceries for my kids" decision after all.  I love that Destroy is unethical because it could kill one squad member, think back to Virmire again, might have two dead, and maybe an entire species, geth, if they're not already dead, and yet CV, which involves genocide, is applauded.  Genocide is genocide, good guy, bad guy, it doesn't matter.  Unless, as I asked earlier, you have a top secret solution that involves the Reapers surrendering?  Here's the inconvenient truth to the Reapers, they are here, as far as the advanced species of life are concerned, to commit genocide.  There is no pacifist solution to this.  This is why I don't play the endings, even if Refusal would be the result, I don't want to go through the fabrication of myself living through the blast that burns my armor/weapons and yet leaves me somehow alive.  To me, the fairy tale ending starts with that survival.

I wasted time playing ME 2 that should have been spent preparing for this eventuality.  We were not prepared and really probably could never be prepared in the short amount of time we have.  I love the optimism that denies how badly Sovereign decimated the fleets at the Citadel, only to lose because he decided, for whatever reason, to engage Shepard on a personal level, instead of opening the relays.  I also love the logic that he was incapable of doing both at the same time.  Fairy tales at work.  My computer isn't all that advanced, but I can run two instances of one of my MMO's so that I can essentially dual box, with one computer, why can't Sovereign multi-task at that level?  Again, that's one Reaper and a swarm of Geth, what happens when we add 1,000 more Reapers?  Hell, what happens when we add 20 more?  The reality of the situation is, as we know from Sovereign, we have advanced exactly as the Reapers intended.  So they are prepared for our technology, they should be, they invented it.  Granted, each cycle probably had variations on a theme, but it's still the same theme.  It's kind of like playing a piece of music in different keys, they sound different, but oddly, they sound the same too, and tone deaf people, which is starting to include me, won't be able to tell the difference.  Although overly simplified, this is the same concept for the tech we're using to fight the Reapers.

[robertthebard]

NorDee65 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

DistantUtopia wrote...

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.

If this were true, wouldn't a conventional victory mean much the same as destroy, or is there some assumption at work that indicates that, once you beat x number of Reapers, the rest will just run away?  No matter which of the two, destroy or conventional is chosen, genocide is a necessity.  As I indicated in an earlier post, it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the Geth have already been wiped out, or that they had to wipe out the Quarians, both of which are pretty easy to get.  However, if you asked the Geth, or could ask them, do you think they would prefer Refusal, so that everybody gets wiped out, including themselves, or do you think they would willingly sacrifice themselves, if given the option?  Before a bunch of supposition goes flying around, the answer to this is given on Rannoch.  Individual geth units were willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve Quarians, before they had the Reaper code.  You can see it while you're in the Geth Consensus.

At any rate, if the Geth are already destroyed, the only AI you know you're going to kill, aside from the Reapers with Destroy, is EDI.  Do you think she would choose self preservation over the preservation of the entire galaxy?  Or would her logic kick in, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

To quote "the needs of the many..." from ST (it was stated by Spock in
"Wrath of Khan", if I remember correctly) in this case is somewhat
misleading.

Spock says something like this as he is prepared to
sacrifice himself in order to save the Enterprise and its crew from
turning either into highly irradiated waste or an expanding plasma cloud
(can't remember which). He then proceeds to repair the damage and dies in the process. (That is pure paragon...)

However, had Kirk ordered
Spock to sacrifice himself for ship and crew, it would have painted Kirk
as an egotistical and uncaring son of a b***. (In my opinion: pure
renegade.)

In Shepard's case it is not enough to say that were
they asked, both EDI and the geth would agree to be sacrificed (if EDI
were present on the citadel, she might well hit Shep over the head and
make that sacrifice herself). But that is the point: even as Shepard is
ready to sacrifice herself "for the good of the many" she has no right
to impose this on anybody else. And if Shepard has been played as a
paragon she will/must refuse.

Both the geth and EDI have discovered the value of life - of their own life - during the course of the game. While it is certainly possible they might agree to die for the rest of the galaxy, it is not a given that they'd want to. That would be an assumption on the player's part, after all.

And even for the other two choices
this quote is not exactly spot on: even as Shepard sacrifices herself
(which could be considered a paragon action), the question arises: what
is the "good/need of the many"? (in control to be considerd sheep guarded by Reaper-Shepherds? in synthesis cyborgs without any hope of further evolution?).

While it is certainly possible that in real life this choice arises, I can certainly wait for it. And even though, it is "only a game", I could have done without this kind of choice. I want to enjoy playing games, darnit, not feel depressed about 4 lessons in futiliy.

I don't disagree with this position, and I postulated this position more to show that none of the choices are as paragon as some may want to believe.

Destroy:  Ends the war, EDI, and possibly geth, depending on Rannoch, die.  In the only playthrough I did where I actually played the ending, this was my option.  The geth were already wiped out by the Quarians, evidently I did something wrong, and couldn't get the option to pick paragon/renegade to stop them from attacking.  My logic at the time, and I can stand by this even now, is that it's sacrifice one friend, or lose trillions of lives.  I'm sorry that it seems like my moral compass may be off, but as you can tell Miranda and Jacob in ME 2 on the Shuttle ride to meet TIM, sometimes you give orders that mean people will die, you can't let that affect your decision.  This is absolutely true.  No matter how morally bankrupt this may seem to people that have never had any lives hanging in the balance based on a decision.  As I tried to point out to someone else earlier, if this means that we are simply being a d**k, then we've been that since ME 1 on Virmire, where somebody under our command is going to die, no matter what we do.  This is also a realistic possibility, because no matter how well intentioned you may be, you can't save everyone.  Regarding choice, people in the military have one choice regarding a lawful order, obey it.  Yes, they can choose to disobey, but depending on the order, disobeying to save their own life may cost them their life at a firing squad.  It's also amusing to me that some that say Destroy is unethical can justify Refusal, which results in the extinction of all advanced life in the galaxy, including the Geth and EDI.  That comes across as rather morally convenient to me.

I have never, nor will ever, as far as how I feel about it right now, play the other endings, nor will I play Destroy again.  As I continually point out, I allow myself to die at the beam in London.  This is to avoid the whole fairy tale of living through that in the first place, let alone the end slideshow.

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I posted it elsewhere but think it makes sense here:

Well we bought our access to the ME world-I know I did by buying the games. The ME "world" was not constructed to be outside the realm of possibility. It stretched that with some things, but it also took some pains to try and make even the incredible plausible. That's not platonic ideal-that's creative writing 101. If I create a story of a family on a farm and the goal is sending a kid to college and the kid does odd jobs to earn money, I don't suddenly in the end have a clown from the planet Gotlotsamoney drop down and buy the kid a car, a new house, and a university. The stage was set in ME1 as the beginning of a series. By virtue of the fact that ME3 has a 3 in its name, it is an implicit promise (creative writing 101) that ME3 will follow within some leeway the "world" and lore of its predecessors. As the purchaser of other content within that "world" I bought ME3 based mostly on that promise-that ME3 would remaind true to its roots, that Shepard would achieve the goal, that I participated in the unfolding of events.

In ME1, you chase Saren who is trying to get to the citadel to set off the signal the protheans stopped the keepers from sending. You don't know why even necessarily that you are chasing Saren but you know he is working to help the reapers and that means he's doing bad things. He must be stopped and then when you find out why, you really know he must be stopped in order to keep the reapers from returning. The goal is impossible, but simple and against all odds it is carried out by people-reapers delayed, Saren dead, Sovereign destroyed, galaxy saved for now.

In ME2, the collectors have arrived as some advance party for the reapers-the reapers have been delayed due to a lot of things and perhaps humans have aroused their curiosity; no other race before has thwarted them in such a way-even destroying Sovereign, their vanguard. We feel that there will at some point (maybe in ME3) some context given for their interest in humans and obsession with Shepard. But one thing is clear-the reapers are coming and they are using the collectors to soften things up for their arrival. The goal is urgent and present-create a team (I hope, I hope these great people will be with me in ME3) and stop the collectors. In ME1, the reapers used the geth and you stopped them. In ME2, the reapers are using the collectors and the geth and you must stop them. Along the way, you learn more about indoctrination and you gain some information on dark energy-seems important (ME3 anyoone?) The goal is impossible but simple and it is achieved by people-collectors defeated, galaxy saved for now, Harbinger says the reapers will find a new way.

In ME3, the reapers are here. They must be stopped. But, it's impossible so let's just hold hands (This isn't about tactics and strategy. We stand together or we die). Ok so where did Shepard go? We can't defeat them so what-we form a chorus line? Uh, ME1 and 2-the goal is impossible. Shepard-nothing's impossible. ME3-the goal is impossible. Shepard-this is impossible. This is the same person that was brought back to life, the very definition of impossible, walking around and breathing. The game had nowhere to go but down from here as far as main plotline and main goal. Main goal: destroy the reapers-not stop them, because that means they still exist and that's not good enough. Solution: Nothing, they can't be destroyed. Enter major magical MacGuffin, the crucible. Well, thank the goddess because otherwise we had nothing. The tangential goal to meet the main goal is the creation of the crucible and the uniting of the galaxy to save Earth, presumably before saving the rest of the galaxy, well hopefully the rest of the galaxy, because the emphasis is on Earth, not the galaxy. But well the writers are human and so, yeah let's save Earth.

Crucible gets completed and finally the goal is in sight, you know the goal of ME1, saving Earth, so let's go take Earth back. Yay!!! Loved kicking Sovereign's butt, and smacking some Collector's behinds, this is going to be good. Impossible my eye, this is Mass Effect and that word does not exist, the fight is on!

Don't believe me read the words of the Bioware boss of Marketing, David Silverman, "I'd love to see this get into as many hands as possible. I think this is definitely the best chance we have in the series to really break out
and go truly blockbuster. It really is a natural entry point for people: giant alien race launches all-out war, you have to rally the forces of the universe to counter and see if you can take them down. That's pretty clear. You don't need to be like: 'Well, what about when I had this love affair?' It's like, who cares? It's all out war!" (There's so much that is so wrong in that one statement, but oh well today we fight).

So, the goal is there (destroy the reapers, strength through unity and diversity in place-we are good to go and have the best chance yet, so says Javik). Let's race and rub Harby's face in some good old-fashioned Earth dirt. Uh oh. Can't move. New gun. No clips. Where did my armor go? Great. I.....can........barely........................move. Big...........fight...........coming..........need...................my.................real.................gun. CRAP.

Ok, blah blah TIM, no won't control them, that's crazy. You look like you tried to become them. Must destroy that's the only way. Goal of 3 games, I mean my goal all along. Oh Anderson what's going on poopie head? Oh I shot you, sorry, now you're dead, double sorry, too bad. Who the hell are you? Oops sorry, bad manners, nice glow.

Original goal: destroy the reapers.
After meeting the lovechild of Shepard and the insane obsession with one poorly written boy, the new goal: stop the conflict between organics and synthetics.

Old wisdom in all ME games and even throughout ME3: Nothing is impossible even if the writers say it is-they are fooling you and you know that's what ME games are really about, achieving the impossible. This is the redeeming value or moral of the stories and redemption is a core concept throughout.
New wisdom at the end of ME and in relation to the main goal: When we say something is impossible we mean it is impossible. Why wouldn't you believe that idiot (reinforced if you reject or refuse Mr. Happy Glow Boy) when we said it was impossible? Stupid fans, don't understand the meaning of the word, apparently.

Old vision: goals are achieved in keeping with the values and morality of the Shepard you create and by people through perseverance and because of their belief in Shepard.
New vision: original goals well uh not really necessarily achieved. Hopefully, they are, but not if the choices aren't true, but if they are one might achieve the goal and who the hell cares about morals and values and people that believed in Shepard anyway? This is Shepard's choice, not theirs. And, anyway we have a new goal and any choice but reject will achieve that cooler goal, the kid's goal-you know Shepard's new BFF. Coool words, god Shepard. Coool look, green eyed cyborgs. Who cares about EDI and the geth, never were important and they certainly weren't people. What idiot fan ever got the idea that they mattered and why destroy the reapers anyway when it's so cool to see them fixing stuff? What were they expecting, a real ending that met the goals of 3 games? Stupid fans. F off and pick reject if you think you're smarter than us. We made a cool bunch of endings, that look really cool, because that's what the games were always all about-not the story, but looking cool. Oh, you wanna know if you took Earth back, well sure maybe sort of. The galaxy, sure it's out there. Who cares? God Shreaper looks and sounds cool. And green eyed Krogan babies-that is what this series was all about. Go ask your new friends, the reapers to have a look and see if Earth and the galaxy are ok.

Additions to this:

Old moral of the story: people can overcome adversity by working together and can throw off the shackles (control or assimilation) of the overseer in keeping with morality. The means justify the ends.
New moral of the story: uh no. You must agree with and either become the overseer, become one with the overseer, and/or abandon your morality. The ends totally always justify the means, and who cares about the ends anyway as long as they look cool. You are intellectual only when you stop thinking. It's not meant for you to understand it for it to be brilliant. You merely must experience it and agree that it is brilliant. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

Lay out your battle strategy to beat the reapers conventionally.  Do not come at this with another "I win" button.  Lay out how you are going to realistically, according to the setting, defeat a force where, in ME 1, if Sovereign hadn't decided to stop one course of action to engage you directly through Saren's husk, and then lost his shields and died, one Reaper and some Geth could have laid waste to every ship that was there.  He carved his way through half of them like a hot knife through butter getting into the Citadel.  Now explain to me how we're going to beat 100 of those conventionally, or a thousand, or 10's of thousands of them, capable of the same levels of destruction.

Shepard is brought back to life by Cerberus:  DeM (insurmountable problem solved?  Your own death)
Reaper IFF to get to Collector Base:  DeM(Insurmountable problem solved?  Getting through the Omega 4 Relay successfully)

[SpamBot2000]

Yeah, Shepard being brought back from the dead doesn't immediately magically solve his problems, since the problem of his dying was introduced in the very same prologue in order to make the resurrection necessary, see? DeM is what happens at THE END of a play, Greek Drama fans. Or if Shakespeare is more your thing, it's that statue coming to life at the end of The Winter's Tale.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 19 juillet 2012 - 04:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

You might want to read what people are actually saying and not just assume to know what they are saying. Conventional fighting does incur casualties, but it does not target one race for extinction in order to further the lives of others-genocide is a decision that other lives are more valuable and thus some lives are totally expendable, especially based on race, religion, ethnicity, and other categories. In war, people die and soldiers are sent to die-an officer doesn't say to a subordinate that because he is gay, his life is less worthy so he must go and be a decoy.

On Virmire, Shepard had to make a choice (and no Wrex wouldn't be dead-I didn't kill him). The Krogan and the geth in ME1 (other than Wrex) were combatants. The Krogan on Virmire were like the Salarians found in the cages and could not be brought back-they would only end up killing a lot of people. The team member that must die is like Sophie's Choice. In the end, I think protecting the one arming the device is the only thing that can make sense because it works toward that goal.

The reapers are unprepared for the geth. The geth are exactly what they were meant to avoid if the kid is to be believed. They were also unprepared for someone to stop the signal.

Simply because the setup is the reapers are impossible to beat, we again must have a debate about how they are possible to beat. But, what's more relevant, that debate or discussing why the writers arbitrarily created the scenario in which they are impossible to defeat while they have given glimpses as to other possibilities. The reason is obvious (no one was in charge of this part of the project so parts don't agree) and more obvious (they didn't want to spend money on a longer game with a real war)-more writing, more real stuff, less awesome unsmart intellectualism at the end.

ME2 did make sense, no matter how often you insist it didn't-others do as well. The collectors were expendable-people (protheans) had stopped the signal and Sovereign was sent to see what was up. Sovereign, one of their most powerful reapers was destroyed. Curious. The collectors are advance forces-if destroyed, well ok they aren't reapers. The collectors are investigating humans and one in particular to the point of obsession. They are collecting humans and information. They never explored why in ME3, but that's a failure of ME3 and not ME2. The Krogans on Virmire, Saren, the heretic geth, and the collectors are all just fodder, used in part to create dissent and conflict and redirect resources and attention. None of them are targeted by Shepard for destruction as part of the slaughter of their entire race. With the collectors Shepard even asks Mordin if they can be saved.

Shepard goes with Cerberus because they are the only ones that have ever believed the reapers exist.

And nowhere in any thread have I ever read that anyone denies Sovereign's capabilities and destruction happened. This is a fabrication. The reapers are an awesome power, but had the writers decided they were not impossible to beat, they would not be. Enter the MacGuffin, which substitutes for writing a lot of stuff you don't want to write. And at the end drop in a Deus ex Machina just to be sure because who wants to write all that.

And as to Star Trek and the needs of the many..."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." To which Star Trek fans all knew that this was not true in Shepard's mind and heart and even we disagree with that. We value individuality. That doesn't mean we think that one person is way more valuable than others just because. But in war, what does, "no man left behind" mean? It means "I will lay down my life, we all will if it means we can save you". That's the meaning of EDI. She has value because in this life, in this existence, in this reality, there is only exactly ONE of her. "Saving Private Ryan" is a good example of this. How many men died for an ideal-saving the last son in a family for his mother? Was it because he was the greatest mind that ever lived? Nope-he was one person with meaning.

People die for ideals, and even many people will die for one person, for what that person represents. Whenever you decide that survival and life only matters as a number's game, you've debased it to such an extent as to make it worthless. No one person is more valuable than all other people, but no one person should be just destroyed because that's the easy thing to do. Ideas, even land have been the basis for people willingly flinging themselves at death-surely one life has more meaning than that. And even that ignores the other millions that would be killed-the geth.

I once read a story with the most poignant statement for me on what losing even just one person could mean. "There's a hole in my heart in exactly the shape of you." The book was "Written on the Body" by Jeannette Winterson. That to me says it all.  You are irreplaceable.  I will not be so quick to lose you.

In the middle ages, life was cheap, people had a lot of kids because not many would become adults. In some historical references on those times, there's an indication that children were treated more like little adults and not many toys existed, at least not for the common people. What appears to have happened was they tried not to get emotionally invested in their children as children. And later on they became commodities. But we have benefits they never had and we see life as valuable. The needs of the few are AS important as the needs of the many.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 juillet 2012 - 04:13 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

You might want to read what people are actually saying and not just assume to know what they are saying. Conventional fighting does incur casualties, but it does not target one race for extinction in order to further the lives of others-genocide is a decision that other lives are more valuable and thus some lives are totally expendable, especially based on race, religion, ethnicity, and other categories. In war, people die and soldiers are sent to die-an officer doesn't say to a subordinate that because he is gay, his life is less worthy so he must go and be a decoy.

On Virmire, Shepard had to make a choice (and no Wrex wouldn't be dead-I didn't kill him). The Krogan and the geth in ME1 (other than Wrex) were combatants. The Krogan on Virmire were like the Salarians found in the cages and could not be brought back-they would only end up killing a lot of people. The team member that must die is like Sophie's Choice. In the end, I think protecting the one arming the device is the only thing that can make sense because it works toward that goal.

The reapers are unprepared for the geth. The geth are exactly what they were meant to avoid if the kid is to be believed. They were also unprepared for someone to stop the signal.

Simply because the setup is the reapers are impossible to beat, we again must have a debate about how they are possible to beat. But, what's more relevant, that debate or discussing why the writers arbitrarily created the scenario in which they are impossible to defeat while they have given glimpses as to other possibilities. The reason is obvious (no one was in charge of this part of the project so parts don't agree) and more obvious (they didn't want to spend money on a longer game with a real war)-more writing, more real stuff, less awesome unsmart intellectualism at the end.

ME2 did make sense, no matter how often you insist it didn't-others do as well. The collectors were expendable-people (protheans) had stopped the signal and Sovereign was sent to see what was up. Sovereign, one of their most powerful reapers was destroyed. Curious. The collectors are advance forces-if destroyed, well ok they aren't reapers. The collectors are investigating humans and one in particular to the point of obsession. They are collecting humans and information. They never explored why in ME3, but that's a failure of ME3 and not ME2. The Krogans on Virmire, Saren, the heretic geth, and the collectors are all just fodder, used in part to create dissent and conflict and redirect resources and attention. None of them are targeted by Shepard for destruction as part of the slaughter of their entire race. With the collectors Shepard even asks Mordin if they can be saved.

Shepard goes with Cerberus because they are the only ones that have ever believed the reapers exist.

And nowhere in any thread have I ever read that anyone denies Sovereign's capabilities and destruction happened. This is a fabrication. The reapers are an awesome power, but had the writers decided they were not impossible to beat, they would not be. Enter the MacGuffin, which substitutes for writing a lot of stuff you don't want to write. And at the end drop in a Deus ex Machina just to be sure because who wants to write all that.

And as to Star Trek and the needs of the many..."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." To which Star Trek fans all knew that this was not true in Shepard's mind and heart and even we disagree with that. We value individuality. That doesn't mean we think that one person is way more valuable than others just because. But in war, what does, "no man left behind" mean? It means "I will lay down my life, we all will if it means we can save you". That's the meaning of EDI. She has value because in this life, in this existence, in this reality, there is only exactly ONE of her. "Saving Private Ryan" is a good example of this. How many men died for an ideal-saving the last son in a family for his mother? Was it because he was the greatest mind that ever lived? Nope-he was one person with meaning.

People die for ideals, and even many people will die for one person, for what that person represents. Whenever you decide that survival and life only matters as a number's game, you've debased it to such an extent as to make it worthless. No one person is more valuable than all other people, but no one person should be just destroyed because that's the easy thing to do. Ideas, even land have been the basis for people willingly flinging themselves at death-surely one life has more meaning than that. And even that ignores the other millions that would be killed-the geth.

I once read a story with the most poignant statement for me on what losing even just one person could mean. "There's a hole in my heart in exactly the shape of you." The book was "Written on the Body" by Jeannette Winterson. That to me says it all.  You are irreplaceable.  I will not be so quick to lose you.

In the middle ages, life was cheap, people had a lot of kids because not many would become adults. In some historical references on those times, there's an indication that children were treated more like little adults and not many toys existed, at least not for the common people. What appears to have happened was they tried not to get emotionally invested in their children as children. And later on they became commodities. But we have benefits they never had and we see life as valuable. The needs of the few are AS important as the needs of the many.

I'm sorry, but conventional fighting does indeed target one race for extinction, otherwise why fight the Reapers?  Do you believe that killing x amount of them will cause them to surrender?  What leads you to this delusion?  However, I'll note that there is no explanation of how you're going to win this conventionally.  Do you have a plan, or is it more of an "I know we can do it, because we beat Sovereign" thing?

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

Lay out your battle strategy to beat the reapers conventionally.  Do not come at this with another "I win" button.  Lay out how you are going to realistically, according to the setting, defeat a force where, in ME 1, if Sovereign hadn't decided to stop one course of action to engage you directly through Saren's husk, and then lost his shields and died, one Reaper and some Geth could have laid waste to every ship that was there.  He carved his way through half of them like a hot knife through butter getting into the Citadel.  Now explain to me how we're going to beat 100 of those conventionally, or a thousand, or 10's of thousands of them, capable of the same levels of destruction.

Shepard is brought back to life by Cerberus:  DeM (insurmountable problem solved?  Your own death)
Reaper IFF to get to Collector Base:  DeM(Insurmountable problem solved?  Getting through the Omega 4 Relay successfully)

I and others have laid it out and you keep ignoring that no one means truly conventional means.  You've read a lot of this all over the place and keep adhering to the idea of shooting at them with guns as what is meant though people have repeatedly said otherwise.  I never said there'd be an "I win" button, not once.

In fact, the writers had previously set up what logically could have happened and how the crucible could have been more of a logical plot device.  It was supposed to be a dark energy device-even Conrad gave info in ME3 towards it being one.  Dark energy can be used to manipulate mass effect fields to change the mass (raise or lower it) of objects within the field.  The reapers once on a planet, lower their masses and reduce the effectiveness of their shields.  Their shields are actually kinetic barriers which are resistant to projectiles, but not to toxins, temperature, and radiation.  The crucible could have been used to weaken their shielding making them vulnerable.

The reaper in London was knocked down by 2 missles-shows that they are vulnerable to some extent while on a planet with their shields weakened.  The Hades Cannon which must have some shielding was taken down by a cain.

Indoctrination signals are similar to and very possibly are quantum entanglement communication signals.  EDI may have information on this that might help to use indoctrination attempts against them.

Give the geth cains and send them out airlocks toward reapers to try and board them and destroy them from the inside if possible.  The geth have had a similar collective mind so perhaps destroying some reapers might weaken the whole group (pure conjecture).

Your examples are not DeMs at all.  A DeMs is quite literally god from the machine-god like or a contrivance that enters in to solve the problem.  Shepard being brought back is given explanation.  Hard to believe, yes.  Unbelievable, no.  The reaper IFF and getting to the Collector base is in no way a DeM.  The IFF is known to be able to get them through the relay-it's an idenitification signature.  Convenient that it exists but it does not in any way rise to the level, nor does anything else of the MacGuffin (unknown) Crucible and the star kid (DeM).  Neither of those are explained in any realistic believable way-not their existence, nor their purpose.  ME has always straddled the line of the possible (reality) and where no science existed, the devs at least tried to create ME science to explain things, make them have a basis in some reality.  The Crucible, Citadel, and star kid form a trio that effectively blew all ME reality to hell.

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Yeah, Shepard being brought back from the dead doesn't immediately magically solve his problems, since the problem of his dying was introduced in the very same prologue in order to make the resurrection necessary, see? DeM is what happens at THE END of a play, Greek Drama fans. Or if Shakespeare is more your thing, it's that statue coming to life at the end of The Winter's Tale.

Yes, because being dead will not end the game, right?  So being dead isn't an insurmountable problem?

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

I'm sorry, but conventional fighting does indeed target one race for extinction, otherwise why fight the Reapers?  Do you believe that killing x amount of them will cause them to surrender?  What leads you to this delusion?  However, I'll note that there is no explanation of how you're going to win this conventionally.  Do you have a plan, or is it more of an "I know we can do it, because we beat Sovereign" thing?

Are you being needlessly confrontative for a reason?

The reapers are the enemy and an overwhelming one.  I don't suffer from any delusions about them and being what they are and what they do and have done, yes they are slated for extinction.  But, in doing that I am not going to throw other people at them for gratuitous extinction.  They are not things that can be reasoned with and Shepard didn't target them for being what and who they are but because of what they are doing and have done.

If destroy is an authentic real choice then it specifically targets the geth and EDI for who they are and not what they have done.

People have repeatedly discussed things that could have been done to try and fight them and I know you've been in those threads.  I've answered you with some ideas of things that could have been written into the story.  I don't think you are being genuine at this point but argumentative.  Want to have a discussion?  Fine.  Act like it.

[SpamBot2000]

robertthebard wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Yeah, Shepard being brought back from the dead doesn't immediately magically solve his problems, since the problem of his dying was introduced in the very same prologue in order to make the resurrection necessary, see? DeM is what happens at THE END of a play, Greek Drama fans. Or if Shakespeare is more your thing, it's that statue coming to life at the end of The Winter's Tale.

Yes, because being dead will not end the game, right?  So being dead isn't an insurmountable problem?

I seriously fail to see how I could clarify what I said. You never play Shepard who has a problem of being dead. 

[Broham]

drayfish wrote...

[snip]
 
Again, this is only my perspective, but I believe that it is the nature of that 'life' that should be cherished and preserved, not simply the act of existing. Shepard, in my reading, shows her heroism by refusing to take part in such a debate over the 'best' atrocity with which to 'save' the universe; because for me, the moment in which the hero taints themself and their universe with an act of evil, the valour that has to that point fuelled the narrative is irreparably violated. From then on the story cannot be a tale of heroism, for if one must destroy the defining elements of our identity and beliefs (freedom; equality; autonomy) in order to 'live', then what has been sacrificed ultimately nullifies that surviving life anyway.
 
I believe that (in fiction at the very least) ideals are worth saving, are worth cherishing. If everything becomes a sliding scale of compromise then where can we even draw the line for the moment in which the hero stands up and says, 'No, I will not bend to this oppression any further'? 
 
A fiction like the ending of Mass Effect 3 speaks to a kind of moral resignation that I find profoundly sad. To me it explicitly states that we can't win through faith in human values, so we must physically and ideologically dominate our enemies – kill, change, or control them, in precisely the way the Reapers have terrorised the universe for countless generations.
 

[snip]

Well said. This whole point is pure gold.

[3DandBeyond]

Broham wrote...

drayfish wrote...

[snip]
 
Again, this is only my perspective, but I believe that it is the nature of that 'life' that should be cherished and preserved, not simply the act of existing. Shepard, in my reading, shows her heroism by refusing to take part in such a debate over the 'best' atrocity with which to 'save' the universe; because for me, the moment in which the hero taints themself and their universe with an act of evil, the valour that has to that point fuelled the narrative is irreparably violated. From then on the story cannot be a tale of heroism, for if one must destroy the defining elements of our identity and beliefs (freedom; equality; autonomy) in order to 'live', then what has been sacrificed ultimately nullifies that surviving life anyway.
 
I believe that (in fiction at the very least) ideals are worth saving, are worth cherishing. If everything becomes a sliding scale of compromise then where can we even draw the line for the moment in which the hero stands up and says, 'No, I will not bend to this oppression any further'? 
 
A fiction like the ending of Mass Effect 3 speaks to a kind of moral resignation that I find profoundly sad. To me it explicitly states that we can't win through faith in human values, so we must physically and ideologically dominate our enemies – kill, change, or control them, in precisely the way the Reapers have terrorised the universe for countless generations.
 

[snip]

Well said. This whole point is pure gold.

As is anything drayfish writes--always to the point and really helps to solidify things we all think.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Broham wrote...

drayfish wrote...

[snip]
 
Again, this is only my perspective, but I believe that it is the nature of that 'life' that should be cherished and preserved, not simply the act of existing. Shepard, in my reading, shows her heroism by refusing to take part in such a debate over the 'best' atrocity with which to 'save' the universe; because for me, the moment in which the hero taints themself and their universe with an act of evil, the valour that has to that point fuelled the narrative is irreparably violated. From then on the story cannot be a tale of heroism, for if one must destroy the defining elements of our identity and beliefs (freedom; equality; autonomy) in order to 'live', then what has been sacrificed ultimately nullifies that surviving life anyway.
 
I believe that (in fiction at the very least) ideals are worth saving, are worth cherishing. If everything becomes a sliding scale of compromise then where can we even draw the line for the moment in which the hero stands up and says, 'No, I will not bend to this oppression any further'? 
 
A fiction like the ending of Mass Effect 3 speaks to a kind of moral resignation that I find profoundly sad. To me it explicitly states that we can't win through faith in human values, so we must physically and ideologically dominate our enemies – kill, change, or control them, in precisely the way the Reapers have terrorised the universe for countless generations.
 

[snip]

Well said. This whole point is pure gold.

As is anything drayfish writes--always to the point and really helps to solidify things we all think.

so are your comments 3D

[ddraigcoch123]

yes i have to agree with 3D and drayfish... and i hope that those who dont hold the same opinions come back with some good arguments rather than just misquoting and/or ignoring the well thought through and argued positions...

if we are to have a debate then lets have a decent two sided one... make the argument for why the endings don't suck... and do fit with the story arc, lore and ethics of the whole of the ME series up to the point we move into some weird out of the galaxy we all thought we existed in, short handed cut and shunt  from another game set of endings that dont ring true..

(actualy endings that jar so badly i suspect some people may need dental work what with the jaw dropping and teeth clenching...)

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 19 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[robertthebard]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

yes i have to agree with 3D and drayfish... and i hope that those who dont hold the same opinions come back with some good arguments rather than just misquoting and/or ignoring the well thought through and argued positions...

if we are to have a debate then lets have a decent two sided one... make the argument for why the endings don't suck... and do fit with the story arc, lore and ethics of the whole of the ME series up to the point we move into some weird, short hand, from another game set of endings that dont ring true...

Exactly what arguement is it that you expect one to bring to change another's opinion?  As far as I'm concerned, anyone that plays past London is looking for "...and they all lived happily ever after" fairy tales.  Making all the endings moot.  This is my opinion, should I be telling everyone else they are wrong because they don't share it?  I still believe that, given the circumstances going into ME 3, in the prologue, not the endings, that we should have been completely plowed under within a week.

"Sirs, UK has a visual".  The very first day of the attack, and yet, despite London being in what we now know as the UK, the end battle takes place there, months later?  How does that work, exactly?

[3DandBeyond]

robertthebard wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

yes i have to agree with 3D and drayfish... and i hope that those who dont hold the same opinions come back with some good arguments rather than just misquoting and/or ignoring the well thought through and argued positions...

if we are to have a debate then lets have a decent two sided one... make the argument for why the endings don't suck... and do fit with the story arc, lore and ethics of the whole of the ME series up to the point we move into some weird, short hand, from another game set of endings that dont ring true...

Exactly what arguement is it that you expect one to bring to change another's opinion?  As far as I'm concerned, anyone that plays past London is looking for "...and they all lived happily ever after" fairy tales.  Making all the endings moot.  This is my opinion, should I be telling everyone else they are wrong because they don't share it?  I still believe that, given the circumstances going into ME 3, in the prologue, not the endings, that we should have been completely plowed under within a week.

"Sirs, UK has a visual".  The very first day of the attack, and yet, despite London being in what we now know as the UK, the end battle takes place there, months later?  How does that work, exactly?

On the one hand you are making our case while denying the validity of what we say.  You ridiculed some of my assessment of the beginning where Shepard says we need to stand together and basically do nothing because it's impossible and now you are doing something similar.

We've said there is much about all of ME3 that is incongruous.  The fact that it boiled down to Earth and then London and was touted as taking Earth back is laughable. 

You really do not intend to hear anything others have said.  Sure, a happier ending is desired by many, but the galaxy is in a bad place.  That's not bunnies and rainbows.  It needs fixing and more-time to bury the dead.

The writers set up a scenario where nothing but a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina could save the day.  They had supposedly great military minds shooting the equivalent of water pistols into the face of whales and kept on doing that.  That's poor writing.  The beginning is horrible, parts of the middle are too, and the ending completes a bold decent into idiocy.  The game is saved, only in part by stories in miniature within it-Tuchanka and Rannoch, and some other micro stories.  I don't think there's much disagreement anywhere that as is a lot of it is just plain bad.

However, reality exists for a reason.  At this point we only know they intend to release SP DLC.  They probably have things set in stone-but that's not a given.  There's no way to resurrect the whole game and even the ending is what it is except there is room for something more.  They won't do it, but they could do it.

And no for the vast majority of people one silly happy ever after ending was not ever what this was about.  It was the possibility of one happier ending and other very logical scenarios for other endings-Shepard dies, reapers lose.  Shepard lives, reapers win.  Shepard dies, reapers win.  Shepard lives, reapers lose.  And other iterations of the state of the galaxy.  An ending that features different scenarios for the main players-Shepard and friends and LI, galaxy, and reapers.

It was hard enough to get them to change anything about the ending, so saying the beginning and a lot of the game was bad is true, but that is really thinking of the impossible.

They could have made the game better and made a real fight possible if they had set the scenario differently  It's not our fault they decided to make a win without a MacGuffin impossible in an attempt to win game of the year.  But, it's wrong to say it isn't possible-they could have made it possible.

You asked me to give you ideas for fighting them and I did-I gave a few and even one that was supposed to be the original intent of the Crucible, that could have made it make sense.  That could have been a discussion point.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .