5087 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@3DAndBeyond:
I say that morality depends on context, and that results do matter. If circumstances force you into a situation where there are no morally clean decisions, then complaining that there are no morally clean decisions is completely beside the point. People complaining that "there's always another way" just don't get that sometimes, there isn't. In RL and in fiction. Such a situation doesn't make the genocide or whatever good, but it does make the decision justifiable if you think the alternatives are worse. There are standards, but they only apply to humans or human-equivalents because that's how we're wired, and they're not absolute in the sense that "you must not ever do X", but rather "you must do your best to avoid X". Moral philosophy actually deals with such situations, asking the question in which situations something is justifiable which in other circumstances wouldn't be. Circumstances matter. Results matter. You have to analyze the situation as a whole and take them into account. Everything else is the attitude of a fundamentalist.

And if you say that ME hasn't been a story with such a message, I point you at Arrival. The final choice of ME3 is Arrival's on a galactic scale. I recall making the same points back then, as answer to the people who complained that there isn't a way of the dilemma. Well, the point of such a dilemma is exactly that there isn't a way out.

Here's why I'm cynical: I see people insisting on "there's always another way", when all of real life and quite a bit of fiction - including ME2 - tell them that isn't true. And they expect their fiction to feed the delusion. Even in ME3 where there's precedent for the opposite.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juillet 2012 - 07:01 .

[3DandBeyond]

Great post Sharxtreme.

The one point I keep coming back to is this is a game and it is a story. As you point out the ending does not fit with the rest of the story-it is in fact as if a whole new story (not a game) started at the conduit or even before. ME stops. Great points you made on this.

I thought I was playing an ME game and that I was playing a game. I don't mind seriousness or even grim costly decisions, if that fits with what has come before. Never before in ME even with all the serious choices you can make, do you ever think it is THIS serious. I cried like a baby as Mordin went to die, but I laughed too. He was humming and singing Gilbert and Sullivan. Serious, yes, but it also kept me on the happy side of total sadness. That was ME at its finest.

At the end, I am forced, in a game that never was like this, to make choices I don't think should be in this videogame. My Shepard stopped the genocide that was the genophage. My Shepard killed TIM under Hackett's orders BECAUSE he wanted to control the reapers. My Shepard saw the problems of advancing people ahead of their time. My Shepard brokered peace and interdependency between the Geth and Quarian because she saw that self-determination and autonomy were important and moral options.

In the end, a Shepard that could make a choice is not my Shepard or any Shepard I'd consider a hero. The game does not allow me an option. I thought I was playing a game, with great stories, but still a game. I didn't know I'd have to play God and split the baby or decide morals don't matter or give up just to finish it.

Refuse isn't, because by its nature it is no choice. It's just a way out of the game.

[3DandBeyond]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
I say that morality depends on context, and that results do matter. If circumstances force you into a situation where there are no morally clean decisions, then complaining that there are no morally clean decisions is completely beside the point. People complaining that "there's always another way" just don't get that sometimes, there isn't. In RL and in fiction. Such a situation doesn't make the genocide or whatever good, but it does make the decision justifiable if you think the alternatives are worse. There are standards, but they only apply to humans or human-equivalents because that's how we're wired, and they're not absolute in the sense that "you must not ever do X", but rather "you must do your best to avoid X". Moral philosophy actually deals with such situations, asking the question in which situations something is justifiable which in other circumstances wouldn't be. Circumstances matter. Results matter. You have to analyze the situation as a whole and take them into account. Everything else is the attitude of a fundamentalist.

And if you say that ME hasn't been a story with such a message, I point you at Arrival. The final choice of ME3 is Arrival's on a galactic scale. I recall making the same points back then, as answer to the people who complained that there isn't a way of the dilemma. Well, the point of such a dilemma is exactly that there isn't a way out.

Here's why I'm cynical: I see people insisting on "there's always another way", when all of real life and quite a bit of fiction - including ME2 - tell them that isn't true. And they expect their fiction to feed the delusion. Even in ME3 where there's precedent for the opposite.

I can understand why you might find people abrasive towards you-you are calling people delusional for expecting things that they were promised.  I never made any decision that would lead me to controlling the reapers or forcing synthesis on everyone.

I never made one decision in the game-in three games that would lead me to have to kill EDI and the GETH.  I couldn't make a decision that would change anything in the Arrival.  It just happened.

I don't play the Arrival anymore.  I won't.  For the same reasons I hate the ME3 endings.  It was created by the same person that wanted ME3 to be a wasteland-he's why we knew it was and then he lied about that and said he couldn't understand why we thought that.  You wonder why people start raging-what do you do when someone you've stuck up for or you've cared about craps all over you?  And when I asked a simple question on twitter-about the meaning of the torso ending I was told by a BW employee that if I didn't like it I should move on.  See, I looked for at least one positive way to end a game.  I didn't get that.  I won't ever get that.  I paid money to get that because many times they alluded to that happening.  I didn't want bunnies and rainbows.  I wanted realistic.  I didn't want fantasy endings of any kind because they didn't ever go into fantasy before.  I wanted realistic as defined in ME games.

The fallacy here is we are talking about a game that was written to provide no positive way out and it exists in a universe (ME) where there always was a positive way out.  I'm saying there should be another way and you have been saying there shouldn't be, just so you can assert there isn't one so I have to choose something that assaults what I view as integrity.

I want to see better, happier things and not just have to live with crap especially in my entertainment.  

If this game had been entitled Destroy the Galaxy and had told players it was about that, I wouldn't have bought it.  Instead in 2 other games and in their stories BW set up the milieu and defined what might be expected.  It would get harder but in ME games and stories there was always a way out.  And in ME games magic didn't get too extreme.  The characters, even the reapers mattered.  The reapers were the ones we went through proxies to get at.  Instead we ended up in demented fairy tale land with someone we never met before and we are expected to form a relationship with him and forget everyone else.  The relationship we had with reapers was a good one.  We hated them.  We don't even get to define our relationship with the kid.  We have to agree with him.  We are not only forced to make choices we don't like, but we have to listen to garbage spewed by someone we instantly hate and act like that's ok.

I didn't buy ME3 and say, "I hope it's like real life where people I care about can kill themselves or large groups of people for no reason."  I didn't buy ME3 and wish that it ended like other stories or games.  I bought it because it was an ME game.  I had played ME1 and 2 and in both there are ways out.  The suicide mission is always meant to sound impossible but I persevered and brought everyone back alive.  The Arrival is one of the least liked of all ME DLC and I've said I don't much care for that ending, but even that is irrelevant.  There is not choice at all there.  The ME3 ending was supposed to evolve out of your choices along the way.  It doesn't.  It was supposed to feature a vast variety of endings but it doesn't.  I play an almost full paragon and there isn't even any paragon choice there.   And there is another way--I don't play it anymore.  I won't give BW any more of my money unless they provide another way.  I don't believe I should be forced to make a choice I can't make to end a game-not when that was not a part of the game all along and not when they said they'd have endings based on my choices.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 27 juillet 2012 - 07:36 .

[SHARXTREME]

3DandBeyond wrote..
I don't play the Arrival anymore. I won't. For the same reasons I hate the ME3 endings. It was created by the same person that wanted ME3 to be a wasteland-he's why we knew it was and then he lied about that and said he couldn't understand why we thought that. You wonder why people start raging-what do you do when someone you've stuck up for or you've cared about craps all over you? And when I asked a simple question on twitter-about the meaning of the torso ending I was told by a BW employee that if I didn't like it I should move on.

I get the really strong (and shared) feeling of disappointment from your post.

And They have really said that? to move on? That's smart.
Either they hate ME so much, or, more likely, they don't care about complaints and find them inferior(as talk about "artistic" vision and "integrity" suggests).

@Ieldra2

Here's why I'm cynical: I see people insisting on "there's always another way", when all of real life and quite a bit of fiction - including ME2 - tell them that isn't true. And they expect their fiction to feed the delusion. Even in ME3 where there's precedent for the opposite.

I get the feeling that you're talking about determinism here.
Well, there is a simple answer. If you believe that individual choice matters/can change things at any level then you are NOT right to imply that people are basically hypocrites for having their own opinion.
On the other hand, If you believe that no individual choice or action can make a difference, then I find it hard to believe that you praise the synthesis option/choice in your signature given to you by Catalyst creature that is made by choice and is also driven by that choice, and finally it expresses his ideal choice.

So what's the deal? You speak of delusions here. Can you explain to me, why is deluded to think there is another way out of some situation? Especially in ME?
What gave you that feeling, aside from Arrival(that was DLC, not part of main story and by that not familiar to all players).
How did you made any choice in this game of choices while thinking they are all meaningless?

And BTW this is rather revealing:

Circumstances matter. Results matter. You have to analyze the situation as a whole and take them into account. Everything else is the attitude of a fundamentalist.

You can not analyze the situation as a whole. You are not space overlord. Did Shepard wanted to become one?
Circumstances matter? Results matter? But the will and rights of entire galaxy do not?
You don't consider other people's wishes and opinions on galactic scale as a decisive circumstance or as any at all?
Hmm, you're maybe do not realize this, but you completely agree with the Catalysts methods and ideas by preferring synthesis enforcement.
Your premise is that moral is merely an arbitrary term that can and must be adapted to master some situation. That is not moral. That is amoral.

[Tallestra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@3DAndBeyond:
I say that morality depends on context, and that results do matter. If circumstances force you into a situation where there are no morally clean decisions, then complaining that there are no morally clean decisions is completely beside the point. People complaining that "there's always another way" just don't get that sometimes, there isn't. In RL and in fiction. Such a situation doesn't make the genocide or whatever good, but it does make the decision justifiable if you think the alternatives are worse. There are standards, but they only apply to humans or human-equivalents because that's how we're wired, and they're not absolute in the sense that "you must not ever do X", but rather "you must do your best to avoid X". Moral philosophy actually deals with such situations, asking the question in which situations something is justifiable which in other circumstances wouldn't be. Circumstances matter. Results matter. You have to analyze the situation as a whole and take them into account. Everything else is the attitude of a fundamentalist.

And if you say that ME hasn't been a story with such a message, I point you at Arrival. The final choice of ME3 is Arrival's on a galactic scale. I recall making the same points back then, as answer to the people who complained that there isn't a way of the dilemma. Well, the point of such a dilemma is exactly that there isn't a way out.

Here's why I'm cynical: I see people insisting on "there's always another way", when all of real life and quite a bit of fiction - including ME2 - tell them that isn't true. And they expect their fiction to feed the delusion. Even in ME3 where there's precedent for the opposite.

I'm not sure that I understand your position on flexibility of morality. About 200 years ago slavery was quite moral, now it is not. If we meet someone who secretly possess slaves, according to you we have to consider and accept his morality? Do I understand your stand on morals?
It's quite a slippery road, I understand, and there are real life example right now happening in our world. But while I personally might debate ways to deal with such people, but I still believe that we should deal with it somehow.

But whatever morals exist in our world or in fictional universes, this is the game, we, players play and we, real people, have certain rules and morals that are acceptable today. And if the message that the game conveys is that it's okay to compromise your integrity, then it's a wrong message, I'm sorry. Because it means that when you face a hard situation in real life next time, instead of trying your best to look for moral option some person would choose easier solution, because you know, it was how this person was raised and educated.

I understand that yes, sometimes you do not have a choice, but here comes my complain about happy endings in ME3. If the game forced you to make a tough morally questionable decision, than it although should drive home the message that it's still morally wrong, even if you believe that you had no other choice.

The mission on Tuchanka delivers it perfectly. Despite playing the paragon I really considered the sabotage. Can I afford to lose salarian support? Can I risk future of Galaxy hoping that Krogans will change? Is my soul and honor more important than safety of the galaxy? In the end I choose to believe in better nature of sentient beings. But if you decide to sabotage the cure you don't get just to press the button. And the more paragon you are, the price is steeper (shooting Mordin in the back and killing Wrex).

And I'm with these that say that lack of this one perfect (paragon) ending goes against theme of the game. I actually feel that control and destroy fit renegade style. Then why not create some perfect paragon ending that would require perfect paragon playthrough of all three games. They did something like this for Quarian/Geth conflict resolution, which required not only high paragon/renegade rating, but required certain choices in two games. Make this one ending where you would be required to really role-play all three games, to work hard and make it as a reward for these players who were with ME from the beginning, who cared about it, and who by the way made it successful.

[Reorte]

Tallestra wrote...

I understand that yes, sometimes you do not have a choice, but here comes my complain about happy endings in ME3. If the game forced you to make a tough morally questionable decision, than it although should drive home the message that it's still morally wrong, even if you believe that you had no other choice.

If you do have no other choice, or the other choices are worse, then there is nothing morally wrong with you (although there probably is with whoever presented the choices).

[SHARXTREME]

Tallestra wrote...
The mission on Tuchanka delivers it perfectly. Despite playing the paragon I really considered the sabotage. Can I afford to lose salarian support? Can I risk future of Galaxy hoping that Krogans will change? Is my soul and honor more important than safety of the galaxy? In the end I choose to believe in better nature of sentient beings. But if you decide to sabotage the cure you don't get just to press the button. And the more paragon you are, the price is steeper (shooting Mordin in the back and killing Wrex).

This part of the story is rather interesting, and it reflects something else that somehow drips from the story.
Besides moral(lack of) there is something else very wrong here that doesn't fit in (SF war) story.

From purely strategic point of view what you have there is a choice between technically advanced and smart Salarians and violent, brute Krogans in large numbers(you cannot know that you helping the Krogans will still bring Salarians to the party later, or that sabotaging Krogans will lead you in situation in which you must kill leader-Wrex that can ensure peaceful Krogan society).
What is wrong here:
Remember what James Vega says in mission on Palaven Moon:
- "Where are the Krogans? Where is the meat?"

This sentence alone shows us the prevalent military tactics of ME3. Numbers. Cannon fodder tactics that continues until the end of the game. EMS system/building Crucible is all about numbers and cannon fodder..

While in some other SF war movies/stories you have completely different situation. And not only SF. (real WWII , apocalypse movies where people let go of narrow-minded racial, political or national disputes and cooperate for good of everybody. So don't tell me Ieldra2 that there are no examples from real life. There are and there were people that made the difference, ended slavery, defeated Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, apartheid. That are constantly trying to make the world a better place, not based on ideology, but on effort to help and to cooperate)

In Star Trek in particular, writers go far to show that no matter how terrible the odds are, there is a way to defeat(or make peace with the enemy) either by some ingenious plan, diplomacy, technical advantage(weak spot) AND most importantly by an advantage that diverse crew members that consists from species you were in conflict with, but made a peace, or good decision, can bring into end game.

ME3 galaxy armada under Hackett uses completely different tactics. You have no technical advantage against Reapers(Crucible is a magic stick), everything that you have is hope, hope that your decisions, methods and moral standards can bring enough allies to have a slightest chance against Reapers. So even the Renegade Shepard is operating on hope/fear, not on a plan.

Example: Hackett says before Quarian series of missions(after Geth Dreadnought mission):
- "Do whatever it takes to bring Quarian support"
Immediately after, you find yourself in middle of 3 Quarians Admirals fighting on why the Admiral of Heavy Fleet fired upon disabled Dreadnought and he asks Shepard:
-"Situation changed. I had to take that opportunity. You are a soldier, Shepard. You would do the same?"
in light of my orders to bring Quarian support, I was diplomatic, I played along and said:
- "Yes, I understand".(even though I would kick him in the face for almost killing us)
It can be a Renegade option, but I didn't thought of it like that.

So, there was hope, your war effort was fueled on hope, every cycle before was also hoping to finish the Crucible, you grew stronger and moments before final showdown you enter Dante's Inferno and read "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here".
What?


Not only that you need to abandon all hope, you must also abandon all fear and embrace your enemy's faulty logic and monstrous methods and even die for his idea. Die completely.
"You will lose everything that you are"

Only in refusal ending you don't lose "everything that you are", but you just lose "proudly"(their intention was almost to show that you are selfish-for not being selfish, amoral for being moral, a hypocrite, what Ieldra2 thinks.) So Bioware splits the player base in black and white extremes camps. In their mind. there are those that play along, no matter what the circumstances and consequences are, and the other that respect their own "high" moral standards, or so they think.
That is a fallacy, you cannot switch the thesis like that and say that moral is arbitrary term, you must prove that moral is an arbitrary term, is adaptable and has no real meaning

I can even stretch my imagination, overlook major plot holes, and say that they tried to deliver the ending(s) that would make you think. But what they did is to forget to include a real tough decision.
When going openly against morals(and logic), they needed to give a reason for it, a circumstances for it, a consequences of it and most importantly they failed. Failed to include the counterpoint, so that whole manufactured tower of problems has fallen apart into a authoritarianism.
They have administrated and orchestrated the situation in which players function(to play and to win) comes through submission filter to their logic.
Therefore the player must be faulty if he can't find the satisfaction in the ending(blame the player, not the game, ha? )
Blame the Shepard, Geth, galaxy that they exist, not the Reapers game of Control, Destroy and Synthesis.

[BD Manchild]

So many people like drayfish, 3DandBeyond and SHARKXTREME have been able to state all the problems I have with the endings in much better terms than I ever could. All of the endings are morally repugnant in every way imaginable, and frankly I am disgusted at Bioware for them. If anything, the EC made them even worse, expecting us to be happy for all the horrible things you do to the galaxy and if you don't like it, then according to them you can burn in Hell. I can honestly say, without exaggeration, that ME3's endings are the worst, most repulsive endings in any game I have ever played, and that is one hell of an accomplishment.

[3DandBeyond]

BD Manchild wrote...

So many people like drayfish, 3DandBeyond and SHARKXTREME have been able to state all the problems I have with the endings in much better terms than I ever could. All of the endings are morally repugnant in every way imaginable, and frankly I am disgusted at Bioware for them. If anything, the EC made them even worse, expecting us to be happy for all the horrible things you do to the galaxy and if you don't like it, then according to them you can burn in Hell. I can honestly say, without exaggeration, that ME3's endings are the worst, most repulsive endings in any game I have ever played, and that is one hell of an accomplishment.

Thank you for kind thoughts--SHARXTREME and drayfish truly have driven this forward and hit points that make what I feel make sense.  You just did this again.

These endings are the most repulsive and repugnant I've ever seen as well.  And it's not only because I've never played a game with serious overtones at the end (though honestly none rise to the level of me remembering them), but it's also because of what the games showed us before.  The endings are weighed not only as they stand against other games and stories, but against the "world" they are set in.  They are the worst I've ever seen in any game I've ever played but they are the worst also for ME games alone.

As SHARXTREME said in ME as in Star Trek you were shown and given ways to rise above and had opportunities to make better choices set against worse ones.  If you had to make a truly bad one (sacrifice Kaidan or Ashley) there was no celebrating it afterwards.  At the end of ME3, you choose to make a horrific indefensible immoral choice and the galaxy is skipping rope.  Making a choice to me in the face of what you are given is akin to saying "I was just following orders."

In real life decisions that speak to the core of what morality means have been made before, like what is presented here.  I will state the obvious-I don't care to end a game that was never about being forced to abandon morality that causes me to do that and then celebrates it.  What did the Krogan and genophage teach us?  This is central to synthesis as well as Destroy.  They forced the genophage into Krogan's bodies without their knowlege and permission and created genocide (altering breeding rates is a form of genocide).  The Krogan had been advanced beyond their readiness and time.  This had caused stagnation and the Krogan society was not prepared for it.  They got bored and fought each other.  Mordin regrets the genophage but feels it was needed and still thinks there might have been another way.

Shepard is in some ways held accountable for making one of these immoral choices, but so is life that is considered expendable.  The geth and EDI are fodder.  But along with morals and values other living things are lost.  Synthesis destroys the mind, heart, will, and soul but I think all choices do this as well.  It advances knowledge along one path from one perspective.  All knowledge will be linear.  It also destroys the idea that other's bodies are inviolate.  If tough choices need to be made it is always right for one person to make them for everyone even if that means changing people from within.  Don't like the way society is developing or what people think?  Is everyone off track, making bad decisions?  Are humans constructs getting out of line and creating dissent?  All programming must then change and the new morality says it's ok to change it for everyone.  Free will can no longer exist at some point.  And in losing that, the heart will go and the soul or spirit (zest for life) will follow.

Control is quite literally the loss of the heart.  Shepard the reaper god no longer has one.  And people who watched their worlds in agony and must now accept the reapers as the fix it men and galaxy police will have their hearts ripped out on a daily basis.  Reapers have killed billions this cycle alone and many of those killed now exist as goo within reapers.  People who lost loved ones must co-exist with killers who ingested their family.  If that doesn't kill the heart I don't know what would.  And part of the heart exists in self-determining.  But so too does the mind, the will, and the soul.

Destroy means determining one race does not matter as much as another.  This is mindless, heartless calculation.  It says to others that at some point you might come for me. 

I don't see even a renegade Shepard as so cold and calculating as to think any of these choices are good or just the best of the worst.  And the writers actually decided this should be made to appear like you've done a good job and got a win for picking the crazy.  Any authentic protracted logical protest to al this is denied.  Make the final choice to reject the repugnant and you're an idiot. 

I may have to accept the sad and impossible in real life, but I often reject that, I certainly don't need this in a game.

[Conniving_Eagle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BD Manchild wrote...

So many people like drayfish, 3DandBeyond and SHARKXTREME have been able to state all the problems I have with the endings in much better terms than I ever could. All of the endings are morally repugnant in every way imaginable, and frankly I am disgusted at Bioware for them. If anything, the EC made them even worse, expecting us to be happy for all the horrible things you do to the galaxy and if you don't like it, then according to them you can burn in Hell. I can honestly say, without exaggeration, that ME3's endings are the worst, most repulsive endings in any game I have ever played, and that is one hell of an accomplishment.

Thank you for kind thoughts--SHARXTREME and drayfish truly have driven this forward and hit points that make what I feel make sense.  You just did this again.

These endings are the most repulsive and repugnant I've ever seen as well.  And it's not only because I've never played a game with serious overtones at the end (though honestly none rise to the level of me remembering them), but it's also because of what the games showed us before.  The endings are weighed not only as they stand against other games and stories, but against the "world" they are set in.  They are the worst I've ever seen in any game I've ever played but they are the worst also for ME games alone.

As SHARXTREME said in ME as in Star Trek you were shown and given ways to rise above and had opportunities to make better choices set against worse ones.  If you had to make a truly bad one (sacrifice Kaidan or Ashley) there was no celebrating it afterwards.  At the end of ME3, you choose to make a horrific indefensible immoral choice and the galaxy is skipping rope.  Making a choice to me in the face of what you are given is akin to saying "I was just following orders."

In real life decisions that speak to the core of what morality means have been made before, like what is presented here.  I will state the obvious-I don't care to end a game that was never about being forced to abandon morality that causes me to do that and then celebrates it.  What did the Krogan and genophage teach us?  This is central to synthesis as well as Destroy.  They forced the genophage into Krogan's bodies without their knowlege and permission and created genocide (altering breeding rates is a form of genocide).  The Krogan had been advanced beyond their readiness and time.  This had caused stagnation and the Krogan society was not prepared for it.  They got bored and fought each other.  Mordin regrets the genophage but feels it was needed and still thinks there might have been another way.

Shepard is in some ways held accountable for making one of these immoral choices, but so is life that is considered expendable.  The geth and EDI are fodder.  But along with morals and values other living things are lost.  Synthesis destroys the mind, heart, will, and soul but I think all choices do this as well.  It advances knowledge along one path from one perspective.  All knowledge will be linear.  It also destroys the idea that other's bodies are inviolate.  If tough choices need to be made it is always right for one person to make them for everyone even if that means changing people from within.  Don't like the way society is developing or what people think?  Is everyone off track, making bad decisions?  Are humans constructs getting out of line and creating dissent?  All programming must then change and the new morality says it's ok to change it for everyone.  Free will can no longer exist at some point.  And in losing that, the heart will go and the soul or spirit (zest for life) will follow.

Control is quite literally the loss of the heart.  Shepard the reaper god no longer has one.  And people who watched their worlds in agony and must now accept the reapers as the fix it men and galaxy police will have their hearts ripped out on a daily basis.  Reapers have killed billions this cycle alone and many of those killed now exist as goo within reapers.  People who lost loved ones must co-exist with killers who ingested their family.  If that doesn't kill the heart I don't know what would.  And part of the heart exists in self-determining.  But so too does the mind, the will, and the soul.

Destroy means determining one race does not matter as much as another.  This is mindless, heartless calculation.  It says to others that at some point you might come for me. 

I don't see even a renegade Shepard as so cold and calculating as to think any of these choices are good or just the best of the worst.  And the writers actually decided this should be made to appear like you've done a good job and got a win for picking the crazy.  Any authentic protracted logical protest to al this is denied.  Make the final choice to reject the repugnant and you're an idiot. 

I may have to accept the sad and impossible in real life, but I often reject that, I certainly don't need this in a game.

I would just like to corroborate something to the endings.

Destroy: This ending lies to your face. 'Everything can be rebuilt.' Really? Like the Mass Relays and AI? No, the lore of the game indicates the contrary. No race has ever mastered Mass Relay technology, the Protheans only came close. With the Reapers annihilated and an insufficient form of communication, it will take several years, decades even, to reach a true understanding of Mass Relays. In that time, any number of things could happen - mass starvation, civil war over resources, technology failiure, etc. It is also lying to you if it is implying rebuilding the AI that were destroyed. This is another betrayal of the game's lore, not to mention one of its themes. An AI cannot be replicated, AI are created from a blue box, each of which is unique. Even after the AI is created, its views are influenced by development. What would the newly created AI think once they learned about the Reaper War and what appears to be the view of organics on synthetics? The Catalyst's problem would come back.

Control: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." In my opinion, this sounds very foreboding coming from a Reaper-god complex. This is no longer Shepard, either. The Reaper-god considers itself a completely different entity from Shepard, and I see a strong possibility that it will formulate its own belief on how to use the Reapers. It might even come to the same conclusion as the Catalyst did, or an even worse one...

Synthesis: The player is to believe that Synthesis leads to a future utopia. It does not. It eliminates free-will and uniquity. The result of synthesis will be cultural and technological stagnation, a very bad thing. It is also a heavy thematic betrayal.

But the Extended Cut doesn't want you to think about that. "Here is this generous gift of closure and clarity from us - Bioware, to you - the [entitled] fans. You have a problem with X? No. Shut up. Just shut up. This is what you wanted. We are giving it to you because we care."

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 28 juillet 2012 - 03:38 .

[SHARXTREME]

3DandBeyond wrote...
What did the Krogan and genophage teach us? This is central to synthesis as well as Destroy. They forced the genophage into Krogan's bodies without their knowlege and permission and created genocide (altering breeding rates is a form of genocide). The Krogan had been advanced beyond their readiness and time. This had caused stagnation and the Krogan society was not prepared for it. They got bored and fought each other. Mordin regrets the genophage but feels it was needed and still thinks there might have been another way.

Very well said. Salarians and Turians made a choice there faced with Rachhni invasion orchestrated by Reapers.
Mordin is also a key figure for the story and the endings, alongside Wrex and Legion.
There is a choice that Mordin makes, a chance to right the wrongs that are enforced.on Krogans.
Maelon was right, but his methods were brutal and such methods couldn't lead him in position that Mordin finds himself later in the story..
There was a seemingly "moral" dilemma here: decision to Keep The Maelon's Data(even though it's based on brutal experiments) or decision to destroy this data based on your personal beliefs.

What you can do with the data, how you can use it is the real moral question, not the question of keeping it or not.

Right there is Mordin's breaking point. Mordin fully realizes that Genophage, and his work on it, was something that bothers him deeply, but he needs a push, a chance to redeem himself and for once use his smarts to do something good..
Then, on Tuchanka, we witness Mordin's redemption, in a way that is truly heroic, while Salarian society is drowning in fear what emerging Krogan could do, and Turian society that needs Krogans no matter what.
Shepard's first major dillema: to kill Wrex or not to kill Wrex in ME1 is crucial to peaceful solution.

Mordin uses the device that was used to spread genophage virus in the first place and used it to cure genophage.
There is, right there and then on Tuchanka, a micro decision that involves Synthesis or Destroy choices, as 3DandBeyond pointed out. And point of that mission is simple. You cannot know what the future will bring, you cannot Control the Krogans like Salarians tried to and be right, you cannot destroy the Krogans and hope to bring both Salarians and them to the war effort.

Something else.
About games and rules.
RPGs(not only) are teaching the player to it's rules and then testing the player on what he learned,
ME3 fails completely there in the ending. Game says: "I have changed. This is completely different game".

[3DandBeyond]

SHARXTREME wrote...

...snipped but full content is great....

Something else.
About games and rules.
RPGs(not only) are teaching the player to it's rules and then testing the player on what he learned,
ME3 fails completely there in the ending. Game says: "I have changed. This is completely different game".

This is exactly it.  In ME3 alone you begin to see that they want to punish you for trying to do good (if you did) in the other games.  Should have killed Wrex, probably let the council die, do The Arrival and kill 300k Batarians, and so on.  Further into ME3, you should let Bakara die, not destroy the genophage, but fake it, and so on.  You are meant at the end to have been an over the top renegade idiot.  That is not the game I thought I was playing.

[SHARXTREME]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...I would just like to corroborate something to the endings.

Destroy: This ending lies to your face. 'Everything can be rebuilt.' Really? Like the Mass Relays and AI? No, the lore of the game indicates the contrary. No race has ever mastered Mass Relay technology, the Protheans only came close. With the Reapers annihilated and an insufficient form of communication, it will take several years, decades even, to reach a true understanding of Mass Relays. In that time, any number of things could happen - mass starvation, civil war over resources, technology failiure, etc. It is also lying to you if it is implying rebuilding the AI that were destroyed. This is another betrayal of the game's lore, not to mention one of its themes. An AI cannot be replicated, AI are created from a blue box, each of which is unique. Even after the AI is created, its views are influenced by development. What would the newly created AI think once they learned about the Reaper War and what appears to be the view of organics on synthetics? The Catalyst's problem would come back.

Yes, that is my view too. Destruction of Geth, EDI (and Reapers) is a major mistake in my opinion. You rob yourself of the chance to learn from them and you rob them of living. They did overcome inherent problems of Reapers and emerged as better and true form of life.

Control: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." In my opinion, this sounds very foreboding coming from a Reaper-god complex. This is no longer Shepard, either. The Reaper-god considers itself a completely different entity from Shepard, and I see a strong possibility that it will formulate its own belief on how to use the Reapers. It might even come to the same conclusion as the Catalyst did, or an even worse one..

.

"The needs of the many.." is completely misinterpreted by Bioware. That logic has its strict boundary. It is meant for individual or a group. Not on a massive scale.
You cannot know what are the needs of entire galaxy and you certainly cannot take on yourself to decide or to satisfy needs of the entire galaxy.
I agree here also. I have said it before, that even if you think that Control solves immediate problems you will strand the galaxy in form of protectorate.
One day somebody will want to take that power away from Shepard-god-Vi 2.0. What then?
Some strong enemy can emerge from who-knows-where and VI will be forced to use the Reapers. And why stop there?

Synthesis: The player is to believe that Synthesis leads to a future utopia. It does not. It eliminates free-will and uniquity. The result of synthesis will be cultural and technological stagnation, a very bad thing. It is also a heavy thematic betrayal.

"Synthesis" is a story for itself. Let aside, for a second, that it is a pure space fairy tale and one of few things that are truly impossible even in some story, you still get the inevitable problems that Bioware decided to not think through or to present.
What is with strive of all organics there to learn, explore and to better themselves?. They suddenly understand everything in the galaxy and can live with it in peace?
What about other galaxies?
What about rebuilding civilizations? You need to make machines for that. Why not make some more synthetics then and be back to problem number one? Oh, you have Reapers for that?
Why would they help you if they are free in that utopia?
Why would others accept their help?
This is like resolving the hostage situation by making the whole world hostage, instead just yourself or some group of people.
And that by enforcing the underlying problem on the people that aren't even aware of the problem.
Imagine freaking Captain Picard that becomes Locutus of Borg freely and assimilates entire federation and galaxy.

According to Bioware logic , that is exactly how you should solve the problem - You join the enemy. You replace the enemy/become one with the enemy on enemies terms, and later you force everybody else to embrace the enemy's(and now yours) master plan.

So, TNG would be ended as galaxy full of Borg if it was written by Bioware.
WWII would end in whole world being under the flag of 3rd Reich,
or as world where Stalin controls entire Hitler's army(he tried, remember Eastern Germany, eastern block?),
or as world where allies slaughter entire population of Germany, Italia, Austria, Hungary, Japan, etc. and everybody that speaks their languages.

Moral of the story. Don't let people responsible for the ending even near the ME ending, they really don't know what ME was about, and logical counterpoints, dialogue and morals are some arbitrary, meaningless words for them.

So why, I as a consumer, have the right to express my disbelief on such monstrously wrong ending writing? Do you find me entitled to even comment your "artistic vision"?
You led me to believe that I made the choices in this game and that they were my choices that influence results of the game. This was a game of choices and entitlement.
So, I think I'm entitled to despise what you have done with my game and my decisions in the game.

First time when I finished the game, still shocked by appearance of Nightmare-Kid, I walked straight in the middle path to see if there is something to click on, explore.
Then, suddenly, Shepard starts running towards the beam. NOOOOOOOOOO. I couldn't believe that this was the end. I still cannot believe that writer(s) responsible for great Krogan/Salarian and Geth/Quarian parts of the story didn't say anything to the ending writers.

Edit: And thanks for kind words 3DandBeyond and all others who made really great points and presented their unique opinion, but I would rather not take any credit for any of my posts. I would rather talk about different endings, hard choices and possible implications on the story.
This is just...yeah, you know, a Starchild Effect. Waiting to hear the response from Bioware, if its ever gonna be one.    

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 28 juillet 2012 - 07:38 .

[D24O]

One of the problems I have with the ending, and its morality, is that unlike other segments of the games (e.g. Tuchunka, Rannoch, even Legion's loyalty mission) the ending makes a statement, and not a suggestion. It's not truly grey, as the game seems to want to force the idea onto you. Contrast that with other segments. The game gives suggestions as to what is morally right, but it doesn't punish the player for disagreeing with it. You can cure or sabotage the krogan, kill or re-write the heretics, and accept or reject synthetic life, but in those segments, it's a discussion. The game is asking the player, rather than telling us to accept something. And the ending segment doesn't, there's no real debate, the player can't input their own ideas and morals unless they happen to align with the Catalyst, or they are fine with their universe being blown away.

[3DandBeyond]

D24O wrote...

One of the problems I have with the ending, and its morality, is that unlike other segments of the games (e.g. Tuchunka, Rannoch, even Legion's loyalty mission) the ending makes a statement, and not a suggestion. It's not truly grey, as the game seems to want to force the idea onto you. Contrast that with other segments. The game gives suggestions as to what is morally right, but it doesn't punish the player for disagreeing with it. You can cure or sabotage the krogan, kill or re-write the heretics, and accept or reject synthetic life, but in those segments, it's a discussion. The game is asking the player, rather than telling us to accept something. And the ending segment doesn't, there's no real debate, the player can't input their own ideas and morals unless they happen to align with the Catalyst, or they are fine with their universe being blown away.

Exactly.

[3DandBeyond]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...


Destroy: This ending lies to your face. 'Everything can be rebuilt.' Really? Like the Mass Relays and AI? No, the lore of the game indicates the contrary. No race has ever mastered Mass Relay technology, the Protheans only came close. With the Reapers annihilated and an insufficient form of communication, it will take several years, decades even, to reach a true understanding of Mass Relays. In that time, any number of things could happen - mass starvation, civil war over resources, technology failiure, etc. It is also lying to you if it is implying rebuilding the AI that were destroyed. This is another betrayal of the game's lore, not to mention one of its themes. An AI cannot be replicated, AI are created from a blue box, each of which is unique. Even after the AI is created, its views are influenced by development. What would the newly created AI think once they learned about the Reaper War and what appears to be the view of organics on synthetics? The Catalyst's problem would come back.

Yes and some take do take it to mean just that-EDI can be rebuilt?  Really?  She was formed through her experiences and thus is part nature and part nurture.  You can't rebuild that.  She is who she is because partly of what she has done and who she has been with and learned from in the context of those experiences.  Absent those things EDI would not be EDI.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 28 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .

[drayfish]

This thread has remained fascinating, as always – but once again I am shamefully behind in my comments, so please forgive me for momentarily dipping back in the conversation...
 
 
@ SHARXTREME:
 
I loved - Loved your version of the Portal song! Absolute genius.
 
And 'GLADalyst' may be my new favourite name for RoboToddler. Great work.
 
 
@ 3DandBeyond:
 

3DandBeyond wrote...
 
It's interesting to put the game on auto-decision making. I chose to start a full paragon type of Shepard. War Hero, Spacer. Gets a paragon boost. I selected Story Mode, no decisions. Every choice it made was a renegade one. I got renegade interrupts that I never get even with a mostly paragon, partly renegade Shepard. I don't know why but they do seem to want you to be a renegade.

I'm fascinated to hear you say that. Ever since I heard (before release) that Bioware had included an auto-play option (something I had previously thought entirely antithetical to the whole purpose of Mass Effect) I had wondered what those 'canon-ish' choices would be. Unless they were entirely randomised (where Shepard would probably come across as a total nutcase), they do seem to invite the inference that there is a 'right' way through the narrative. ...And if the developer 'endorsed' way is to go all Renegade-y, that probably does speak volumes about the thematic intent of the game.
 

3DandBeyond wrote...
 
When she's before the committee she just keeps digging into the idiot pit. Strategy won't work because the reapers will never stop, so let's stand together and fight or die. Ok, what? What do we do then? Pretty sure shooting at them from head on wasn't working so what does fighting entail? That was the original question-how do we fight/stop them? Well, it's obvious. We fight them by fighting them. Brilliant.

This is so true.  
 
I remember hearing that first exchange: 'What's the plan?' / 'We fight or we die', and similarly thinking that Shepard might have gone a little mental. It's the first time I've ever agreed with anything the council says when that one guy responds: 'That's the plan?!'
 
I found myself thinking, 'Yeah, that's kind of vague, Shep. You might want to get a whiteboard and do some spit-balling or something, because – damn.'
 
(...But at least that was the only time the game made me agree with a faceless authority figure whose agenda I despised.  ...Oh, wait a minute.)
 
And I love how apt your description of those reversals of character are, and that phrasing: 'personality nukes'.
 
Indeed, both you and SHARXTREME, in each of your summaries of the vagaries in the plot-structure, hilariously capture those mind-numbing narrative allowances we're asked to just accept at face value. Great stuff.
 
 
And @ TookYoCookies:
 

TookYoCookies wrote...
 
With out any ability for me to focus on the task at hand (Keep running for the beam) or just give him medi-gel and continue the push (really anything else would have been better) ; i get ushered into a scene full of contrived emotion and a complete lack of situational awareness as i stop smack dab in the middle of a bottleneck in direct line of sight of a Reaper capital ship. (This killingground and my opposition on the otherside, being the entire reason why im forced into such a suicidal tactic!) So now, i am not only putting myself and my other non-injured squad mate in even greater danger than before, im also putting the Normandy and it's entire crew at risk as well. Custer wouldve been proud.

Great point, YookYoCookies (and love your name, by the way).
 
I think the only way it makes sense is if the Reapers are actually shift workers. I've got to imagine that Harbinger was on a fifteen minute break, and since his supervisor wasn't watching all that closely he decided to linger a little longer. He just sat there – yawning, shooting the odd stray laser to look busy – but was actually flicking through a magazine, not noticing that on the other side of the pages something kind of important was going on...
 
When he folded over the back cover to start filling in the crossword he saw –
 
'What?! Hey, wait! That's the Normandy! Get back here! Come back! I didn't get to say "THIS HURTS YOU"! ...Hm. Well, you'd better not have had a heartfelt expositional scene filled with tragic portent! ...Oh, man. Old Mr Catalyst is going to be so mad at me.'

[3DandBeyond]

drayfish wrote...

 

TookYoCookies wrote...
 
With out any ability for me to focus on the task at hand (Keep running for the beam) or just give him medi-gel and continue the push (really anything else would have been better) ; i get ushered into a scene full of contrived emotion and a complete lack of situational awareness as i stop smack dab in the middle of a bottleneck in direct line of sight of a Reaper capital ship. (This killingground and my opposition on the otherside, being the entire reason why im forced into such a suicidal tactic!) So now, i am not only putting myself and my other non-injured squad mate in even greater danger than before, im also putting the Normandy and it's entire crew at risk as well. Custer wouldve been proud.

Great point, YookYoCookies (and love your name, by the way).
 
I think the only way it makes sense is if the Reapers are actually shift workers. I've got to imagine that Harbinger was on a fifteen minute break, and since his supervisor wasn't watching all that closely he decided to linger a little longer. He just sat there – yawning, shooting the odd stray laser to look busy – but was actually flicking through a magazine, not noticing that on the other side of the pages something kind of important was going on...
 
When he folded over the back cover to start filling in the crossword he saw –
 
'What?! Hey, wait! That's the Normandy! Get back here! Come back! I didn't get to say "THIS HURTS YOU"! ...Hm. Well, you'd better not have had a heartfelt expositional scene filled with tragic portent! ...Oh, man. Old Mr Catalyst is going to be so mad at me.'

Oh golly--laughed so hard at this and then got a bad image in my head of Harby reading the latest copy of Playreaper, looking at the centerfold and then realizing it's back to work time.  Yikes.  Cattaboy would not be happy.

Once again, prof, I am humbled.

[drayfish]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 
I can tell you why they didn't. Too many fans are absolutely determined to interpret everything in the most negative way possible. This was Bioware's unsubtle way to say "This is a happy ending!!!!!!!!" (add 10k exclamation marks for emphasis). I've often bemoaned Bioware's apparent inability to be subtle, but in this case I can only agree. Some people have to be hit with a hammer. Those who don't need the hammer are usually imaginative enough to headcanon their way out of too much one-sidedness.

@ Ieldra2:
 
I know it can be frustrating when people have such wildly divergent readings of the same text (one that, admirably,  you have found a way to interpret in a positive light) but I don't think it's in any way fair to say that some people 'need to be hit with a hammer' in order to not read these events in a negative manner.
 
In the first go around, the Original Cut, we were left with the universe's only means of transportation blowing up (something fans knew was utterly alien tech that had never before been fully understood or rebuilt); we saw galaxy after galaxy seemingly annihilated by the fallout of the explosions (because fans knew that, in the past, such damage resulted in supernovas of devastation); and our beloved crew was crashed on a planet with no means of repairing the ship (again, fans knew from previous evidence of alien biology that at least two of those crewmembers would surely starve to death).
 
And that's all before even addressing each individual ending, our personal Choose-Your-Own-Perpetual-Stain-upon-the-Future-Existence-of-all-Life: exterminated races; sanctioned mind-control; or unwilling genetic violations for everyone. And  all this because our genocidal enemy decided that we were all too underdeveloped to ever get along – and no matter what we do we can never prove him wrong.
 
(They really are disgustingly cynical endings.)
 
But the reason that people saw such dark logical eventualities in the text is because Mass Effect (until those endings) was a universe that encouraged and rewarded investment in the details of the fiction and its larger universe (even when those details relied upon some pseudo-science logic like with eezo). There is a whole psychology of reward feedback with this game that deepens our connection to it through play: characters remember our actions; the story weaves choices we influenced into the action (if Wrex is dead we meet his numb-nut cousin; never switch on Legion and he'll show up at the Cerberus base to shoot at us and then die, etc); but most importantly, we are encouraged to seek out knowledge of the world (the Krogan back-story of the Genophage; Legion's descriptions of the Geth hive-mind) so that when it comes time to make weighty decisions, we can be informed about what result our actions might inflict upon the world... The more information we can gather, the more codex entries we read, the more aware we are of the history of these conflicts, the better we can predict what might occur and prepare accordingly.
 
In the Original Cut, across the board, the game's final moments actively punished anyone who had been paying attention to the details of the universe, who had invested in its logic. Fans weren't just whinging and stomping their feet – they were utilising the imagination and clear reasoning that the game itself had trained them to employ for hundreds of hours. Exploding Relay = Untold Horror. Normandy smashed into uncharted planet with destroyed engines = Gilligan's Island.
 
It has never been that people were too obtuse to use their imaginations and logically connect the dots – it was that every single rational step along that speculative pathway resulted in devastation: hunger; ruin; chaos; warfare. 
 
This was the very 'wasteland' Mac Walters apparently envisioned leaving us to mourn.
 
Players are effectively insulted for paying more attention to the fiction than the writers ever bothered to.* It stabs at the narrative itself, but also at our willingness to invest ourselves, to take note of and celebrate the minutia, which until that point was a treasured component of the experience.
 
At best, all that can be said of the endings is that after three games of encouraging investment in the details, the ending throws up its hands and says: 'Hell, we don't know. You can just make it up or something.' And while I admire people such as yourself who can clearly just reject the implications of the narrative in order to overwrite what was unsatisfactory, I think fans can hardly be blamed for finding such a lazy shifting of the gears a laughably weak and contradictory substitute for closure.
 
 
*It's no accident that the latest Marauder Shield's comic (dear God I love them...) carries the rallying cry: 'FUELED BY NOTHING BUT FAN LOVE / MASS EFFECT LIVES ON'.

Modifié par drayfish, 28 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

 

TookYoCookies wrote...
 With out any ability for me to focus on the task at hand (Keep running for the beam) or just give him medi-gel and continue the push (really anything else would have been better) ; i get ushered into a scene full of contrived emotion and a complete lack of situational awareness as i stop smack dab in the middle of a bottleneck in direct line of sight of a Reaper capital ship. (This killingground and my opposition on the otherside, being the entire reason why im forced into such a suicidal tactic!) So now, i am not only putting myself and my other non-injured squad mate in even greater danger than before, im also putting the Normandy and it's entire crew at risk as well. Custer wouldve been proud.

Well said. For me, the Extended Cut made this part of the game even worse.

The Conduit Run in a Nutshell

Hackett:Shepard you better watch out! Harbinger is coming.

*Harbinger arrives near the beam wearing his big 'Harbinger' Reapers' sports jersey*
*Shepard and friends are rushing down the beam along with soldiers*
*Harbinger is shooting like crazy*
*Harbinger takes out tank that nearly kills Shepard's squad*

Shepard: WHOA WHOA! HOLD ON, EVERYBODY STOP WHAT YOUR DOING! YOU TOO, HARBINGER!

Harbinger: Is there a problem, Shepard?

Shepard: Yeah, my friends were almost killed. One second.

Harbinger: Ah, of course, a terrible inconvenience.

Shepard: Joker, can you get the Normandy out of the massive battle ensuing in space and down here on London in a few seconds?

Joker: No problem Commander, I can get there faster than you can say art.

*Normandy lands near the beacon faster than you can say art*

Shepard: Alright, come on guys.

Shepard's LI: No! Shepard wait! I want to stay with you!

Shepard: I'm sorry I can't have that.

Shepard's LI: But wai-

*Shepard slaps the hull of the Normandy like a horse as it winnies and FTLs out of London*

Harbinger: Shepard, are we ready now?

Shepard: ALRIGHT LET'S DO THIS!!!

Harbinger: Prepare yourselves!

Soldiers: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

[drayfish]

Ieldra2 wrote...
 
Another thing I have taken away from the debate (not from the game and not from the ending) is a rather cynical attitude towards morality. People are so incredibly dogmatic and one-sided about that, as if their personal morality was the beginning and the end of the world. They don't see how incredibly self-centered such an attitude is, expressing such an inability to see anything but themselves, expecting the universe to cater to their every whim. If the game makes the point that no, this isn't how things work, then I can only commend Bioware on that. I gladly pay the price of an ending I can't be completely comfortable with to see that message being sent.

I'm still not sure I understand your point here, but I am very keen to. Are you arguing that morality should be appreciated as entirely fluid?  That we should aim for 'doing good', but accept that we can't always, and just accept that all morals are simply interchangeable precepts ultimately only governed by momentary circumstance? Is this correct?

I know that I'm just going to be repeating what others have said far more succinctly, but, I think what dissatisfied fans have been expressing – certainly what I am hoping to convey in my comments – is precisely the opposite of the 'selfishness' you are describing. In contrast to my 'personal' beliefs, I think morality should at all times be about respecting everyone else's right to life and autonomy. 
 
The end of the game, however, demands that we violate at least one of these principles. It can be argued that it is for some 'greater good', but it is in no way 'moral'. We have stripped others of their civil and biological liberties – even if it is 'for the best'. In direct contrast to your experience, I find it very heartening that people have revolted against this notion.
 
If we human beings (even in fiction) start to lose sight of the horror that is an individual inflicting their will upon the populace without consent – robbing people of their most fundamental rights (even in the name of survival) – then we have started down a very frightening, very dangerous road. Indeed, I am unnerved immeasurably by the way in which this epic tale of sacrifice and struggle utterly whitewashes the amorality at the heart of such an victory with gleeful celebration:

'Yay, Shepard! That was the right thing to do! You saved us all! Your name will be passed down for generations because you proved that occasionally is it's okay to violate the most fundamental sanctities of life!'
 
The Mass Effect universe's motto, post ending, has become: 'We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...sometimes.'
 
If I'm 'dogmatic' for finding that a point of concern, then I wear the title proudly. 

Modifié par drayfish, 28 juillet 2012 - 11:04 .

[drayfish]

@ Conniving_Eagle:

Hilarious stuff.  A time-out for rough-housing.  Brilliant.


...And is it weird that I do now legitimately picture the Normandy as a horse?

Modifié par drayfish, 28 juillet 2012 - 11:02 .

[clennon8]

@drayfish: Let me join you in cheering "hip hip hooray!" for this particular brand of dogmatism.

[Ztrobos]

drayfish wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
 
Another thing I have taken away from the debate (not from the game and not from the ending) is a rather cynical attitude towards morality. People are so incredibly dogmatic and one-sided about that, as if their personal morality was the beginning and the end of the world. They don't see how incredibly self-centered such an attitude is, expressing such an inability to see anything but themselves, expecting the universe to cater to their every whim. If the game makes the point that no, this isn't how things work, then I can only commend Bioware on that. I gladly pay the price of an ending I can't be completely comfortable with to see that message being sent.

I'm still not sure I understand your point here, but I am very keen to. Are you arguing that morality should be appreciated as entirely fluid?  That we should aim for 'doing good', but accept that we can't always, and just accept that all morals are simply interchangeable precepts ultimately only governed by momentary circumstance? Is this correct?

I know that I'm just going to be repeating what others have said far more succinctly, but, I think what dissatisfied fans have been expressing – certainly what I am hoping to convey in my comments – is precisely the opposite of the 'selfishness' you are describing. In contrast to my 'personal' beliefs, I think morality should at all times be about respecting everyone else's right to life and autonomy. 
 
The end of the game, however, demands that we violate at least one of these principles. It can be argued that it is for some 'greater good', but it is in no way 'moral'. We have stripped others of their civil and biological liberties – even if it is 'for the best'. In direct contrast to your experience, I find it very heartening that people have revolted against this notion.
 
If we human beings (even in fiction) start to lose sight of the horror that is an individual inflicting their will upon the populace without consent – robbing people of their most fundamental rights (even in the name of survival) – then we have started down a very frightening, very dangerous road. Indeed, I am unnerved immeasurably by the way in which this epic tale of sacrifice and struggle utterly whitewashes the amorality at the heart of such an victory with gleeful celebration:

'Yay, Shepard! That was the right thing to do! You saved us all! Your name will be passed down for generations because you proved that occasionally is it's okay to violate the most fundamental sanctities of life!'
 
The Mass Effect universe's motto, post ending, has become: 'We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...sometimes.'
 
If I'm 'dogmatic' for finding that a point of concern, then I wear the title proudly. 

 
I think the ending is great for just this reason. Pure paragons have had a very easy tim making the perfect choices the entier game through. Suddenly they face a choice where no alternative is obviusly superior to the other, and they melt! If thats not art, then I do'nt know art.

[SHARXTREME]

@ drayfish

I'm glad - GLaD that you liked my remix. Thanks.

I remember hearing that first exchange: 'What's the plan?' / 'We fight or we die', and similarly thinking that Shepard might have gone a little mental. It's the first time I've ever agreed with anything the council says when that one guy responds: 'That's the plan?!'

I found myself thinking, 'Yeah, that's kind of vague, Shep. You might want to get a whiteboard and do some spit-balling or something, because – damn.'

Great point. Yep, That's the plan. The game is full of such moments, but.. I can overlook that, Shepard is a soldier, (and most of the time he needed to convince the council that Reapers even exist)
He's not a strategist or technical wizard to come up with a plan, but there are strategists there like Hackett and geniuses like Mordin that can come up with legit plan.
Oh, no, what. Shepard didn't think to ask Mordin for his opinion on Reapers before he died.
And that strategist is Hackett.
We're doooooomeeed ....to go on foot, shielded by Asari biotic barriers and driven by Krogan bravery against Harby, interrupted by hordes of husk fans asking for an autograph or a memento from this historic occasion. An arm, a leg, eyeball, piece of charred N7 armor, anything will do..
 
Also this:

The Mass Effect universe's motto, post ending, has become: 'We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...sometimes.'
 
If I'm 'dogmatic' for finding that a point of concern, then I wear the title proudly.  

Yes. Even though I'm not American, I think that is the line from your Constitution?(without sometimes, of course)
I imagine, in all constitutions stand similar words, how we respect those words is completely different story. .  
But the wildest thing for me in all this talk about " how moral is adaptable", is the twisting of very definition, and characterising the people that are not willing to submit to mass murdering enemy and commit mass genocide as hypocrites, cowards and even to put the title "selfish" on them. Where did that come from.
     
  
    
@ Conniving_Eagle

*Shepard slaps the hull of the Normandy like a horse as it winnies and FTLs out of London*

haha. This was truly hilarious. Brilliant.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 29 juillet 2012 - 12:17 .