5087 réponses à ce sujet

[EnvyTB075]

You don't pilot them into the sun, thats just your headcanon which is invalidated by the EC.

[SHARXTREME]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Factor one: I always kind of assume that Shepard is intelligent.

It relates to how closely the result Shepard expects correlates with the result he achieves. The more perceptive, intelligent, and deductive Shepard is, the more closely what he believes the result will be would correlate with the result.

If you play a Shepard who is completely unable to predict the results of his own actions, then you're basically playing an idiot. Imagine a Shepard who sent Zaeed into the vents to solve a tech issue. Imagine a Shepard who didn't realize Wrex would get mad at him if he sabotaged the genophage. Imagine a Shepard who thought he could survive sleeping with an Ardat Yakshi. I'm not saying that Shepard should be completely prescient, but generally Shepard seems to have some basic clue about how his actions will affect the future of the galaxy, and is acting on those clues...

This is where I don't agree.
Shepard there in the ending can not act intelligently. Shepard didn't obtain the knowledge required to be logical.(before actually pressing all four ending buttons)
Because, you see, you can make anything to sound logical with the limited knowledge you have, only if you disregard previous knowledge obtained..

Example 1: Shepard fell asleep(or died) trying to reach the control panel. Then Shepard ascended on some platform to where? Open space between Citadel and Crucible where he meets a manifestation of dead boy from his dreams.
Let's stop right here.
Shepard meets someone from his nightmares who is dead. And that someone is the one he was looking for. That someone speaks using a combination of male and female Shepard's voice in right/left channel.
You meet this someone in the place you cannot survive, in space. Furthermore, nobody else from the fleet can see you, and you don't try to talk with anyone.
Logic tells you that this, based on Shepard's knowledge, is not possible.
But, it somehow is. Or is it?
Right there, Shepard finds out that he doesn't posses the knowledge/intelligence required to make a logical choice or conclusion .

Example 2:
The moment when Catalyst says "I Control the Reapers" everything Shepard thought to know about Reapers is gone. So he can't make a logical decision anymore. Because, you know, logic doesn't function without knowledge.
From there on, logic is based on the question of trust( in your own ability of comprehension), can Shepard trust the Catalyst or himself(I mean he sees dead people on alien space station, speaking with half-his voice)
That means 2 things:
a) Shepard is dreaming(trust irrelevant)
Catalyst can read Shepard's mind completely and create the illusion of someone he knew(trust almost impossible)

That fact under is only relevant knowledge Shepard obtained before making a decision - Fact that Catalyst(if he exists) can read Shepard's mind.
Then he proceeds to give Shepard the Choices.

What's wrong here? Everything.
Furthermore I can argue that Shepard who charges Harbinger on foot is not intelligent.
Then he sends Normandy back to space to fight the less important fight and continues to charge Harbinger on foot - not intelligent.

Only 2 logical conclusions: BioWare in EC tried to clarify that this complete situation is Shepard's dream OR they really didn't know how to write the ending and riddled the story with so many "illogicals" that you can conclude anything based solely only on your own preference.
That's the point where I agree with @robertthebard.
From the point where Shepard goes to charge Harbinger on foot, everything else stops to make any sense.

But, let's say you ignore that and proceed. There you find that player is confronted with imposed problems:

1. Catalyst's problem: Organics right to create synthetics(not answered, but the Catalyst makes the strongest case against it, fear)
2. Shepard's problems: Catalyst, Reapers, Geth and rights of synthetic life to live after the act of creation(not answered, and the Shepard makes a case for it with Geth-Quarian peace, hope)
3. Problem of objectivity:
We know that Catalyst has his ideal choice and it can be achieved with Shepard's agreement.. What is Shepard's ideal choice? Destruction of Reapers? Without Geth harmed? Shepard's ideal choice brings us to
4. Problem of consequences:
-Control - What will unchecked Shepard VI 2.0 do when he encounters some enemy
-Synthesis - what are the side-effects of changing genetic code on galactic level?Remember. There's a 97% of unexplored galaxy with the species you have never met. Possibility of giant backlash is enormous only in this galaxy, what about all other galaxies?
-Destroy- will Geth destruction result in some future synthetics that will take that example as a reason to destroy organics?
-Refuse- this cycle's advanced species get harvested(or not in some other story), but the next cycle wins against the Reapers with the intelligence you provide? Using the Crucible or some other way?
5. Problem of intention: What is writer's intention?
6. Problem of player's disconnection from Shepard

Too much text. Sorry all..

[SHARXTREME]

Oxspit wrote...
Personally, I really like the tone of that kind of ending. You don't finish with a resounding victory (although it should really be seen in that light - you actually do break the cycle), you finish with a 'what now?'

And, ultimately, I would have thought the writers would prefer that kind of thing because, well.... sequels.

Actually, I'm just going to take this opportunity to shamelessly recycle the outline I came up with in another thread (with a few edits) about how I thought the IT could be handled, which had a similar kind of ending:

Your ending version coressponds with some of my thoughts. But it's not in the story, they won't change it that way.
The bolded part is still the biggest mistery to me. Why did writers sabotage the Mass Effect?
To destroy the franchise?
I just can't find any logical explanation, because writers don't want to talk about endings at all. 

Something else, according to leaked lines from Leviathan DLC, BioWare has decided to directly destroy the validity of Synthesis ending themselves. If you don't know what I'm talking about I won't spoil it.
(but it has to do with what I have been saying from the beggining, that First decision that Catalyst made was Synthesis-creation of Reaper, His final solution is galactic wide Synthesis which will make what? A galaxy sized Reaper?
The trick is that nobody inside that Galaxy Reaper can't know that they together are forming a Reaper because of rules of individual consciousness.
Synthesis is a result, not the process. Synthesis is Sum greater then sum of it's individual parts.(and Catalyst is constantly harvesting/assimilating other parts)
Individual parts that cannot EVER comprehend what are they forming together, because they are at a lower level of existence, they are INSIDE. In the box. 
Shepard(before the choice) and Catalyst(even after the choice) are outside and Shepard can (possibly) comprehend Reapers situation.
Catalyst is the Sum of all Reapers, greater then them, not part of them.("Citadel is a part of me") Like organs are part of organism.
Basically, Shepard in Synthesis is not "playing-god" he is creating a god-like creature. That is the evolution Catalyst is talking about. His evolution. 
It's the same thing when Paragon Shepard and Legion created even more "alive" Geth. It's the same act. Legion(with Shepard's help) created greater sum of individual Geth. Geth are the many who are one. 
In that light, that logic, it is only possible to destroy Catalyst by destruction of his parts(Reapers)
1 question remains. Are Geth and EDI connected to Catalysts collective somehow?   
I bet BW will try to turn-around the story completely in that direction with this and future DLCs so that highest EMS Destroy will be the only viable option.)

 So, Is creating synthetic life ethical?
and do already created synthetics have the right to live on?
Those two questions are there for Shepard to answer..
And one question for the reader: Can a creator create something greater then himself? Evolution through creation?

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 08 août 2012 - 01:25 .

[robertthebard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I will not play God, so Control and to a large extent Synthesis are off the table.  At this point, the "I really thought the Crucible would work differently than it does, and this is what turns me off most about the endings" comes in, but I built the Crucible, granted, not physically, but without the resources that I sent, it wouldn't get done, to destroy the Reapers.  This is what I believed it would do, although how was a question, and a valid one.  Being a soldier, and being entrusted with the fate of the galaxy, why would I choose to do nothing and let everyone die?  I see a lot of "Why would anyone believe the SC", and yet, I see a lot of "he says it will kill the Geth and EDI".  Am I supposed to believe that everything but that is a lie?  Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that, given it will destroy SC, that it would say anything if it thought you'd be adverse to destroying more than you bargained for?  Of course, in hindsight, we do know it's telling the truth, but, at that time, w/out metagaming, we don't.  In so far as we know, this could be the only lie it's telling us.

I don't understand this argument at all, and I never have.

Why is controlling a bunch of spacehships and piloting them all into the sun "playing god," while hitting a button that destroys all those spaceships and also destroys a bunch of other races and murders your friend not "playing god." What is your definition of 'playing god'? Because based on what you say here, it seems to only include whatever you conveniently find unpleasant.

As for disbelieving the Catalyst... If you don't believe that the Red beam will kill synthetics, why on god's green earth would you believe it will kill Reapers? The only reason you have to believe either of those things is that the Catalyst tells you. Both statements are equally ridiculous and nonsensical: why would shooting a random tube kill the Reapers?

if you choose to disbelieve that it will kill the Geth but choose to believe that it will kill the Reapers, you are being completely illogical. You're picking what to believe and disbelieve based on absolutely nothing but whim and fancy. You might as well be claiming that you believed the red beam would give everyone ice cream sundaes. I could equally validly claim I thought the Catalyst was using reverse psychology in order to trick me into not using the green beam.

Heck, the ONLY decision that makes sense if you decide to disbelieve the catalyst is to try to destroy him by shooting him... making "shoot-in-the-face Refuse" the only choice that even remotely approaches rationality. There's no downside to shooting the holo in the face, if you are actually trying to incorporate being suspicious of the Starkid and completely unaware of the true consequences into your decision-making.

Once you decide that your Shepard believed some things and disbelieved other things based on nothing but gut instinct, you are portraying your Shepard as a superstitious, illogical xenophobe who committed genocide simply because it was the only choice he thought he was capable of understanding... (though if he made that decision while thinking it wouldn't kill the Geth, it turns out he was incapable of understanding anything at all.)

If that's the kind of person you believe Commander Shepard was, then I can understand why Destroy makes sense.

You are so firmly entrenched in hating the endings that you are incapable of role playing a Shepard through them?  Can you guarantee that, in 1000 years, you won't turn the Reapers onto the Council races for all the times they literally spit in your face about the whole ordeal?  Can you guarantee you won't do it in 10,000 years?  You have absolute power over the Reapers, this is playing God.  You can indeed fly them all into a sun, if you chose, you can also turn them on Palaven for the hell of it.  Either scenario is likely, in the eventuallity that is eternity.  I chose to actually think about what those choices meant, instead of being so dissatisfied with them that my logic was turned off.  Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Isn't part of the arguement against SC that it's logic is flawed, or that it's insane from an eternity of being in complete control?  So you would willingly place yourself in the same position?  I won't take the chance, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So let's get this straight; we are to disbelieve everything it says?  Hence, the only real option would be to shoot it in the face?  Because no matter what, if everything it says is a lie, you have to either be gullible, and buy a lie, or, you have to be resolute in your belief that allowing everyone in the galaxy to die is the right thing to do, and, if you are so resolute in your belief, why even bother to get there?  You see, this is the option that I most often choose, with my own little head canons that vary depending on what my EMS is.  I choose to die in London.  If you are so convinced that there is nothing of value to be gained by proceeding past there, why do you proceed past there?  I only did it twice, in 12 games, so that I could work on achievements that require at least one finish, and I only did it the second time so I could use a different Shepard.  I say, if you're going to refuse anyway, why bother to put yourself through the fiction of the SC?

Once I decided that my Shepard would trust their gut, I decided that they were human.  You know, I find it odd that you can condone doing nothing, or completely altering every living thing's base make up, organic or synthetic, with out consulting any of them, but find killing one race of being to preserve all the other races, both currently advanced, and every civilization that is to follow as being the ultimate evil.  Destroying the Reapers doesn't just save your cycle, it prevents future cycles as well.  This means that life evolves as it's meant to, instead of continueing a cycle that you believe is led by an untrustworthy being.  Yet, you trust it enough, since shooting the SC doesn't kill it, just triggers the end, to allow it to continue.  Will the Shepard that chose to destroy the Reapers be remembered as a war hero, or a war criminal?  The Shepard that chose to do nothing will be remembered only for what they allowed Liara to say about them in the time capsule.  How a Control Shepard is remembered will vary, depending on what is done with the Reapers, won't it?  Again, is there any way anyone can guarantee they won't slip into madness and believe that it's time to harvest again?

I realize, or am coming to, that you have a set belief on which ending should be chosen, and it suits you.  That's acceptable.  That you believe all are abhorrent is also acceptable.  That you have decided to judge someone else for not believing as you do, or, more accurately, for role playing What Would Shepard Do, is certainly the atmosphere of BSN, but doesn't make your opinion of what that Shepard does any more or less valid than the opinion of the one that chose to play that way.  You'll notice that I don't comment in the "support group" threads for endings.  I don't post there because I don't buy into any of them as the absolute best answer.  I have been able to play two Shepards to where it matters, and both of them have chosen to destroy the Reapers, and end their millenium long reign of terror.  Whether you agree, or disagree with my logic is irrelevent, I didn't do it to please you.  I did it because, after being forced to swallow the bitter pill of "I survived a shot that would have ripped a shuttle in half", preventing this from ever happening again was foremost in my mind, and has been my goal since I became aware of it.  Buy it, don't buy it, I don't care.  This is the way that my Shepards played out.

[robertthebard]

SHARXTREME wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Factor one: I always kind of assume that Shepard is intelligent.

It relates to how closely the result Shepard expects correlates with the result he achieves. The more perceptive, intelligent, and deductive Shepard is, the more closely what he believes the result will be would correlate with the result.

If you play a Shepard who is completely unable to predict the results of his own actions, then you're basically playing an idiot. Imagine a Shepard who sent Zaeed into the vents to solve a tech issue. Imagine a Shepard who didn't realize Wrex would get mad at him if he sabotaged the genophage. Imagine a Shepard who thought he could survive sleeping with an Ardat Yakshi. I'm not saying that Shepard should be completely prescient, but generally Shepard seems to have some basic clue about how his actions will affect the future of the galaxy, and is acting on those clues...

This is where I don't agree.
Shepard there in the ending can not act intelligently. Shepard didn't obtain the knowledge required to be logical.(before actually pressing all four ending buttons)
Because, you see, you can make anything to sound logical with the limited knowledge you have, only if you disregard previous knowledge obtained..

Example 1: Shepard fell asleep(or died) trying to reach the control panel. Then Shepard ascended on some platform to where? Open space between Citadel and Crucible where he meets a manifestation of dead boy from his dreams.
Let's stop right here.
Shepard meets someone from his nightmares who is dead. And that someone is the one he was looking for. That someone speaks using a combination of male and female Shepard's voice in right/left channel.
You meet this someone in the place you cannot survive, in space. Furthermore, nobody else from the fleet can see you, and you don't try to talk with anyone.
Logic tells you that this, based on Shepard's knowledge, is not possible.
But, it somehow is. Or is it?
Right there, Shepard finds out that he doesn't posses the knowledge/intelligence required to make a logical choice or conclusion .

Example 2:
The moment when Catalyst says "I Control the Reapers" everything Shepard thought to know about Reapers is gone. So he can't make a logical decision anymore. Because, you know, logic doesn't function without knowledge.
From there on, logic is based on the question of trust( in your own ability of comprehension), can Shepard trust the Catalyst or himself(I mean he sees dead people on alien space station, speaking with half-his voice)
That means 2 things:
a) Shepard is dreaming(trust irrelevant)
Catalyst can read Shepard's mind completely and create the illusion of someone he knew(trust almost impossible)

That fact under is only relevant knowledge Shepard obtained before making a decision - Fact that Catalyst(if he exists) can read Shepard's mind.
Then he proceeds to give Shepard the Choices.

What's wrong here? Everything.
Furthermore I can argue that Shepard who charges Harbinger on foot is not intelligent.
Then he sends Normandy back to space to fight the less important fight and continues to charge Harbinger on foot - not intelligent.

Only 2 logical conclusions: BioWare in EC tried to clarify that this complete situation is Shepard's dream OR they really didn't know how to write the ending and riddled the story with so many "illogicals" that you can conclude anything based solely only on your own preference.
That's the point where I agree with @robertthebard.
From the point where Shepard goes to charge Harbinger on foot, everything else stops to make any sense.

But, let's say you ignore that and proceed. There you find that player is confronted with imposed problems:

1. Catalyst's problem: Organics right to create synthetics(not answered, but the Catalyst makes the strongest case against it, fear)
2. Shepard's problems: Catalyst, Reapers, Geth and rights of synthetic life to live after the act of creation(not answered, and the Shepard makes a case for it with Geth-Quarian peace, hope)
3. Problem of objectivity:
We know that Catalyst has his ideal choice and it can be achieved with Shepard's agreement.. What is Shepard's ideal choice? Destruction of Reapers? Without Geth harmed? Shepard's ideal choice brings us to
4. Problem of consequences:
-Control - What will unchecked Shepard VI 2.0 do when he encounters some enemy
-Synthesis - what are the side-effects of changing genetic code on galactic level?Remember. There's a 97% of unexplored galaxy with the species you have never met. Possibility of giant backlash is enormous only in this galaxy, what about all other galaxies?
-Destroy- will Geth destruction result in some future synthetics that will take that example as a reason to destroy organics?
-Refuse- this cycle's advanced species get harvested(or not in some other story), but the next cycle wins against the Reapers with the intelligence you provide? Using the Crucible or some other way?
5. Problem of intention: What is writer's intention?
6. Problem of player's disconnection from Shepard

Too much text. Sorry all..

That is my conundrum.  There is nothing logical about surviving the laser blast.  Everything from there is done, when I can get myself to do it, on pure instinct.  If, on a personal level, Shepard feels that altering every living being in the galaxy on a genetic level is bad, s/he's not going to do it.  Looking at the madness that is an every 50,000 year cycle of harvesting tech advanced species, is Shepard going to believe that they can prevent themselves from ever, and ever is a very long time, doing the same thing, or same kind of thing?  Absolute power.  Is s/he going to believe that doing absolutely nothing is going to stop the Reapers?  SC tells us that the cycle will continue, so while there's no real reason to believe anything the SC says, there's no reason to doubt that, it's not like harvesting stopped when we rode the platform up.  So, my conundrum; destroying the Reapers may well destroy the Geth, if they are around at all at this point, and EDI.  Is it worth it to prevent the harvest from continueing now, and preventing it from ever happening again, in the foreseeable future.  Note that this consideration didn't come into play with my Brutal Renegade, since destroying the Reapers was never not the idea.  With my Paragon, it did, and the final answer, based entirely on what I have in front of me when I did it, is yes, it's worth it.  Not only am I stopping the current harvest, but I am preventing the Reapers from ever doing it again.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

robertthebard wrote...

You are so firmly entrenched in hating the endings that you are incapable of role playing a Shepard through them?  Can you guarantee that, in 1000 years, you won't turn the Reapers onto the Council races for all the times they literally spit in your face about the whole ordeal?  Can you guarantee you won't do it in 10,000 years?  You have absolute power over the Reapers, this is playing God.  You can indeed fly them all into a sun, if you chose, you can also turn them on Palaven for the hell of it.  Either scenario is likely, in the eventuallity that is eternity.  I chose to actually think about what those choices meant, instead of being so dissatisfied with them that my logic was turned off.  Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Isn't part of the arguement against SC that it's logic is flawed, or that it's insane from an eternity of being in complete control?  So you would willingly place yourself in the same position?  I won't take the chance, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Right. I'm sure that everyone else who committed genocide on a peaceful, helpless race in the past did so with the best intentions. I'm sure they thought that doing so was the only way to preserve their freedom, and the purity of their race. They'd rather genocide millions of innocent than let their DNA be corrupted by the DNA of the hated other.

My point isn't that destroy is worse, I just don't understand why definitely single-handedly genociding at least one race with the press of a button fits the definition of "playing god" more than possibly single-handedly killing a race using animate spaceships a few thousand years from now.

Also, it's interesting that you think so little of Galactic society that you firmly believe they'd never be able to actually resist the Reapers if Shepard went rogue. 

robertthebard wrote...
So let's get this straight; we are to disbelieve everything it says?  Hence, the only real option would be to shoot it in the face?  Because no matter what, if everything it says is a lie, you have to either be gullible, and buy a lie, or, you have to be resolute in your belief that allowing everyone in the galaxy to die is the right thing to do, and, if you are so resolute in your belief, why even bother to get there?

What? You are making absolutely no sense here. I will try to break things down more simply, in the hopes of helping you understand.

1. You have two logical choices - believe that the Starkid is giving you accurate information, or disbelieve that he is giving you accurate information. You are choosing an illogical choice: disbelieve only the information you don't like.

Ordinarily, if you are in a situation where someone is telling you something, you can logically choose what parts to beileve and disbelief based on other information you have. In this case, you have access to absolutely ne relevant information that could help you make an informed decision about any of the things he's saying.

The starkid says: "Ok. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I." And then you say "hmm. I disbelieve H because I hope it's not true. I believe A because I want it to be true. I'm suspicious of G because it sounds scary."  It's the same as someone who chooses not to believe in evolution because it's scary or troublesome, while still believing in gravity because it doesn't make him uncomfortable to think abou it.


2. If you are making the decision WITHOUT knowing what the result will be. Without out-of-game-knowledge there is absolutely no reason to believe that shooting the starkid in the face will do anything other than kill the Starkid. Thus, shooting him in the face in no way represents a belief that the galaxy should die. You keep vacillating back and forth between claiming Shepard is making the decision based on having no knowledge of what the results will be and claiming that it's immoral to shoot the kid in the face because that will destroy all life in the galaxy. Can you not see how this is deeply contradictory and hypocritical?

robertthebard wrote...
Once I decided that my Shepard would trust their gut, I decided that they were human.  You know, I find it odd that you can condone doing nothing, or completely altering every living thing's base make up, organic or synthetic, with out consulting any of them, but find killing one race of being to preserve all the other races, both currently advanced, and every civilization that is to follow as being the ultimate evil.  Destroying the Reapers doesn't just save your cycle, it prevents future cycles as well.  This means that life evolves as it's meant to, instead of continueing a cycle that you believe is led by an untrustworthy being.  Yet, you trust it enough, since shooting the SC doesn't kill it, just triggers the end, to allow it to continue.  Will the Shepard that chose to destroy the Reapers be remembered as a war hero, or a war criminal?  The Shepard that chose to do nothing will be remembered only for what they allowed Liara to say about them in the time capsule.  How a Control Shepard is remembered will vary, depending on what is done with the Reapers, won't it?  Again, is there any way anyone can guarantee they won't slip into madness and believe that it's time to harvest again?

I realize, or am coming to, that you have a set belief on which ending should be chosen, and it suits you.  That's acceptable.  That you believe all are abhorrent is also acceptable.  That you have decided to judge someone else for not believing as you do, or, more accurately, for role playing What Would Shepard Do, is certainly the atmosphere of BSN, but doesn't make your opinion of what that Shepard does any more or less valid than the opinion of the one that chose to play that way.  You'll notice that I don't comment in the "support group" threads for endings.  I don't post there because I don't buy into any of them as the absolute best answer.  I have been able to play two Shepards to where it matters, and both of them have chosen to destroy the Reapers, and end their millenium long reign of terror.  Whether you agree, or disagree with my logic is irrelevent, I didn't do it to please you.  I did it because, after being forced to swallow the bitter pill of "I survived a shot that would have ripped a shuttle in half", preventing this from ever happening again was foremost in my mind, and has been my goal since I became aware of it.  Buy it, don't buy it, I don't care.  This is the way that my Shepards played out.

Right. You're content in your genocide. I get it. You're confident that murdering an entire allied race is less bad than asking the entire universe to accept change. You'd rather destroy those who are different from you than learn from them. You believe Shepard is incapable of maintaining self-control long enough even to destroy his foe if he used Control, so you are forced to murder an entire race due to your certainty that he would be too weak to prevent himself from going insane in the time it takes to drive the Reapers into the sun. I understand.

All those things: the weakness, the hatred of change, they may be true of your Shepard, but they aren't necessarily true of anyone else's. Yes, the destroy ending makes sense for a shepard who is terrified of change, who believes that changing someone is worse than murdering their entire race, who doubts his own self control to the extent that he's willing to murder an entire innocent race (and possibly countless unknown other races) because doing so is less horrifying than the darkness he knows he is capable of if he were to get power for even a few weeks.

You're right that I have a favored ending. It's called the big purple button. It's the ending where you take the elevator back down to a room where some race that wasn't an idiot built an extra bit on the Crucible... a bit that turns the Starkid off. You push that button, the starkid turns off, and the chips fall where they may. 

It's an ending that's sane and sensible and hopeful and bittersweet. It's an ending that could have been added without devaluing the other endings. It's an ending that doens't play god, unlike all the endings that exist.

That's the entire point of this thread - read the title. ALL were thematically revolting. ALL. There isn't a single one that's acceptable. They're all so unremittingly horrible that they've rendered what was previously my favorite game of all time completely unplayable. The only reason I'm here is out of hope that someday, maybe decades in the future when they remake the game, someone will add an ending that isn't a monstrous god-playing insane nonsensical unpredictable atrocity.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 06:14 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nyoka wrote...

If you keep saying your Shepard will throw the Reapers into a sun, I'll keep saying the Geth can be restored from a backup no problem and Synthesis makes everybody tranquil.

Wild fanfiction for everybody.

It's pretty obvious throwing the reapers into a sun is not what the authors intended for Control. You can imagine it, of course, but that doesn't make what you imagine true.

I'd agree with you if were were discussing the endings in terms of what their actual effects are, but right now the topic has shifted to discussions of what Shepard might believe at the time he is making the decision if he doesn't have any knowledge of what the effects would be.

Here's the difference: I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to believe that Shepard can't drive the reapers into the sun when Shepard picks control, if you don't have out of character knowledge.

Whereas the game explicitly states that AIs whose blue boxes are destroyed cannot be simply restored.

My idea that Shepard could fly the Reapers into the sun doesn't directly contradict game lore as it is understood at the time of the decision.

The idea that the Geth and EDI could be restored does directly contradict game lore as it is understood at the time of that decision.

Right now, the specific argument is about why Shepard would make a given choice at the time, with no knowledge as to what the results will be. My belief that the Reapers could be piloted into the sun does not require my Shepard willfully discard established in-game laws of science, while your belief that AIs can simply be restored from backups does require your Shepard willfully disregard known in-game laws of science.

Are these in-game laws of science stupid and badly written? Sure. That's my entire point - the ending is bad, and absolutely no aspect of it is remotely salvageable without a complete rewrite, or the addition of another option that isn't completely insane and poorly concieved.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 06:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Nyoka wrote...

You're not supposed to believe you will throw the reapers into a sun because that's not what the writers intended for Control. What the writers intended is you will control the Reapers, not destroy them. This is clarified in the EC, with the Shepard VI speech talking about how there is power in control and she will remain vigilant and stuff.

You're dismissing the author intent and doing everything you were accusing someone else of doing regarding synthesis a page or two back.

You're shifting from "what the writers intended" when someone wants to extrapolate implications of an ending to "anything goes as long as the lore allows it" when it's you doing the headcanon and the fanfiction.

And the geth don't use blue boxes.

Now, since they're all terrible, please describe the flaws of synthesis.

If you want to consider only the actual effects of the decisions, then Synthesis is obviously the best because everyone is happy and nobody is racist anymorem, while everyone still retains every aspect of their orignal personality other than their racism. That's what the slides indicate happens, anyway.

You can pretend that Synthesis does something other than that, but pretending that it does anything else is nothing but fanfiction, as you indicated earlier is true of believing that Control lets you pilot the Reapers into the sun, or beliving that Destroy doesn't commit genocide and murder.

To answer your question as to why I still find Synthesis atrocious, it's because Shepard doesn't know it'll just be an anti-racism gun when he fires it. He's meddling with things he doesn't understand. What's more... I'm not entirely convinced of the ethics of an anti-racism beam. Is it OK to violate someone's free will by causing them to no longer unjustifiably hate a minority group? If it's OK to use a beam to forcibly change someone's brain so they're no longer racist, what other aspects of a person's personality would it be acceptable to forcibly alter with your Care-Bare-Stare?

The quandary of whether or not it's OK to force someone to accept social change against their will is a very real one. How do we balance freedom of religion against the rights of gays and lesbians? If you could push a button that would suddenly make everyone who was a member of a religion that bullies gay people lose their faith, would that be an evil act? It would certainly be a morally questionable one.

That's what Synthesis is: it makes racists not racist anymore by mixing their DNA with the DNA of the race they hate. That is definitely morally questionable, but I find it less morally questionable than genocide.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 07:09 .

[The Angry One]

Nyoka wrote...

Thanks. This was getting partisan with all the destroy bashing and synthesis defending. Now we can get back to how all of them suck.

Hey hey HEY. I won't hear a word said against the secret purple ending.

[AresKeith]

The Angry One wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Thanks. This was getting partisan with all the destroy bashing and synthesis defending. Now we can get back to how all of them suck.

Hey hey HEY. I won't hear a word said against the secret purple ending.

I still like my idea for the Crucible, its better than colors

[SHARXTREME]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I still find Synthesis atrocious, it's because Shepard doesn't know it'll just be an anti-racism gun when he fires it. He's meddling with things he doesn't understand. What's more... I'm not entirely convinced of the ethics of an anti-racism beam. Is it OK to violate someone's free will by causing them to no longer unjustifiably hate a minority group? If it's OK to use a beam to forcibly change someone's brain so they're no longer racist, what other aspects of a person's personality would it be acceptable to forcibly alter with your Care-Bare-Stare?

"Synthesis" message is disturbing. No one, no individual or group/race should be allowed to come in power to make such decision. Either it includes EVERYONE INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE or it's not to justify. No way. (I'm talking in absolutes here, which is also wrong. That is because of that logical hostage situation. Absolutism vs Absolutism)

That message is "Why kill the enemy, when you can rewrite your enemy to be your friend".
Let's analyze this sentence.
1. "Why kill the enemy".
First part of this sentence is an assumption that you came to kill your enemy, that you can kill the enemy, and that you have the enemy and that there is only one other way(like in Geth Heretics situation).
2. "..when you can rewrite your enemy to be your friend"
This one is "tricky", because you can't make someone to not be your enemy/to be your friend, unilaterally. You make them. Force them. But they are still not your friends/are your enemy.
Why?

Because of this.
Fact from the game. Game states clearly that Synthesis will make/allow everyone to understand each other.
So, Krogans will understand Salarians, Humans-Cerberus-Reapers.etc.
BUT, a GIANT GALACTIC BUT(with smashing the keys on keyboard sound:)-
without actually changing someone's motives/personality, understanding alone will not bring peace. It can't.
There's no logical explanation why would understanding alone remove all disagreements?
humans deeply understand most motives of other humans and there is still major/fundamental disagreements because of nature of individuality.
Game doesn't say at any point that the Synthesized galaxy will cease to be filled with individuals.
Only(not in game) conclusion is that everybody will be connected somehow, and serve a greater purpose(of Catalyst). Being the Sum of individual parts, a giant Reaper.

Something else. Even though I have mentioned this many times indirectly, it seems clearer to me now that there can be one core mistake that player can make by overlooking something very important.
Saren-TIM-Shepard Triangle. ME1-ME2-ME3. Synthesis-Control-Destroy.

Imagine yourself playing the role of Saren.
Imagine yourself playing the role of The Illusive man.
Imagine yourself playing the role of Shepard.

Yes, that's right. Shepard is like them, especially in this ending.
Shepard is a bad guy/gal. It can be the case of deep indoctrination, but It also can be what Shepard is naturally. Player just plays the role. In some non-interactive story this would be clear as day.
Include someone in the story to "unindoctrinate" Shepard(like Shepard did to Saren and TIM) and suddenly all is perfectly logical.
But, there's that small thing with still unresolved Reaper situation.

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 08 août 2012 - 07:52 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SHARXTREME wrote...
Because of this.
Fact from the game. Game states clearly that Synthesis will make/allow everyone to understand each other.
So, Krogans will understand Salarians, Humans-Cerberus-Reapers.etc.
BUT, a GIANT GALACTIC BUT(with smashing the keys on keyboard sound:)-
without actually changing someone's motives/personality, understanding alone will not bring peace. It can't.
There's no logical explanation why would understanding alone remove all disagreements?
humans deeply understand most motives of other humans and there is still major/fundamental disagreements because of nature of individuality.

This is where you leave the realm of what the game tells us, and enter the realm of fanfiction.

The game absolutely in no way implies that there will never be war again. It doesn't imply that all disagreements have been removed. It doesn't imply that any individuality has been lost, other than racism.

It just implies that nobody hates each other on the basis of RACE anymore. They may hate each other for other reasons, there may be wars in the future, but they won't be RACE WARS.

I have no idea why you believe any of the other things you suggest happen happen. There's absolutely no evidence that anyone loses any aspect of their personality other than racism and the inability to understand each other.

So here's my question: a man is coming at you with a gun because he hates your race. You have a gun to defend yourself which has two settings: KILL and MAKE-NOT-RACIST. Are you saying it would be ethically preferable to kill this guy than to forcibly make him not racist?

Because if you honestly believe it is more ethical to kill him than make him not racist, I actually understand that. Making him not racist with an anti-racism beam violates his free will, whereas killing him just ends his life. The question is, does that racist consider his racism such an intrinsic part of his identity that he'd rather die than not be racist anymore?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 08:16 .

[SHARXTREME]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

SHARXTREME wrote...



Because of this.
Fact from the game. Game states clearly that Synthesis will make/allow everyone to understand each other.
So, Krogans will understand Salarians, Humans-Cerberus-Reapers.etc.
BUT, a GIANT GALACTIC BUT(with smashing the keys on keyboard sound:)-
without actually changing someone's motives/personality, understanding alone will not bring peace. It can't.
There's no logical explanation why would understanding alone remove all disagreements?
humans deeply understand most motives of other humans and there is still major/fundamental disagreements because of nature of individuality.

This is where you leave the realm of what the game tells us, and enter the realm of fanfiction.

The game absolutely in no way implies that there will never be war again. It doesn't imply that all disagreements have been removed. It doesn't imply that any individuality has been lost.

It just implies that nobody hates each other on the basis of RACE anymore. They may hate each other for other reasons, there may be wars in the future, but they won't be RACE WARS.

I have no idea why you believe any of the other things you suggest happen happen. There's absolutely no evidence that anyone loses any aspect of their personality other than racism.

So here's my question: a man is coming at you with a gun because he hates your race. You have a gun to defend yourself which has two settings: KILL and MAKE-NOT-RACIST. Are you saying it would be ethically preferable to kill this guy than to forcibly make him not racist?

No, game(Catalyst) states that everyone will understand each other and that that will ensure peace(in Destroy Catalyst says that peace won't last, but he says that Synthesis is ideal solution. Logical conclusion is that Synthesis is what can make the peace to last, according to Catalyst)
This is not fanfiction, this is logical argument against Catalyst's Synthesis option.
I didn't hear anything about making them not racist. Can you quote?(remember I'm still talking about choice, not about result) and I'm laying out a logical argument against that assumption.  
Catalyst's main problem is Organics-Synthetics war(or so he says), Synthesis will just make organics and synthetics to understand eachother. 
It NEVER, not at any point states that it will remove racism.(it will just remove conflict between Synthetics and organics) Correct me if I'm wrong with a direct quote.

1. So here's my question: a man is coming at you with a gun because he hates your race. You have a gun to defend yourself which has two settings: KILL and MAKE-NOT-RACIST. Are you saying it would be ethically preferable to kill this guy than to forcibly make him not racist? 

2. Because if you honestly believe it is more ethical to kill him than make him not racist, I actually understand that. Making him not racist with an anti-racism beam violates his free will, whereas killing him just ends his life. The question is, does that racist consider his racism such an intrinsic part of his identity that he'd rather die than not be racist anymore?

Question #2:You see, that is the question that you must ask the racist, not the person some racist is threatening to kill.
Question #1: And It doesn't matter what I believe at all. I'm being held at gun point.
Like Shepard when he is taken hostage by Catalyst.
And you are also playing exact same role by asking me such question.
YOU are giving me two choices, kill or rewrite. I Refuse. (ba-dum-tss)
You are playing God by putting me in that situation.(can you understand that conversational and logical mistake?)
I want a third, a fourth, a inumerable number of choices.(to clarify, I want not to be put in that situation by you) 

Modifié par SHARXTREME, 08 août 2012 - 08:46 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

But if I choose control I get "I command an army none shall dare oppose." I do not get the benevolent control ending. I get the Stalinist control ending. So tell me, Control? or Destroy? Which one do you trust this Shepard with?

[robertthebard]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

You are so firmly entrenched in hating the endings that you are incapable of role playing a Shepard through them?  Can you guarantee that, in 1000 years, you won't turn the Reapers onto the Council races for all the times they literally spit in your face about the whole ordeal?  Can you guarantee you won't do it in 10,000 years?  You have absolute power over the Reapers, this is playing God.  You can indeed fly them all into a sun, if you chose, you can also turn them on Palaven for the hell of it.  Either scenario is likely, in the eventuallity that is eternity.  I chose to actually think about what those choices meant, instead of being so dissatisfied with them that my logic was turned off.  Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Isn't part of the arguement against SC that it's logic is flawed, or that it's insane from an eternity of being in complete control?  So you would willingly place yourself in the same position?  I won't take the chance, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Right. I'm sure that everyone else who committed genocide on a peaceful, helpless race in the past did so with the best intentions. I'm sure they thought that doing so was the only way to preserve their freedom, and the purity of their race. They'd rather genocide millions of innocent than let their DNA be corrupted by the DNA of the hated other.

My point isn't that destroy is worse, I just don't understand why definitely single-handedly genociding at least one race with the press of a button fits the definition of "playing god" more than possibly single-handedly killing a race using animate spaceships a few thousand years from now.

Also, it's interesting that you think so little of Galactic society that you firmly believe they'd never be able to actually resist the Reapers if Shepard went rogue. 

robertthebard wrote...
So let's get this straight; we are to disbelieve everything it says?  Hence, the only real option would be to shoot it in the face?  Because no matter what, if everything it says is a lie, you have to either be gullible, and buy a lie, or, you have to be resolute in your belief that allowing everyone in the galaxy to die is the right thing to do, and, if you are so resolute in your belief, why even bother to get there?

What? You are making absolutely no sense here. I will try to break things down more simply, in the hopes of helping you understand.

1. You have two logical choices - believe that the Starkid is giving you accurate information, or disbelieve that he is giving you accurate information. You are choosing an illogical choice: disbelieve only the information you don't like.

Ordinarily, if you are in a situation where someone is telling you something, you can logically choose what parts to beileve and disbelief based on other information you have. In this case, you have access to absolutely ne relevant information that could help you make an informed decision about any of the things he's saying.

The starkid says: "Ok. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I." And then you say "hmm. I disbelieve H because I hope it's not true. I believe A because I want it to be true. I'm suspicious of G because it sounds scary."  It's the same as someone who chooses not to believe in evolution because it's scary or troublesome, while still believing in gravity because it doesn't make him uncomfortable to think abou it.


2. If you are making the decision WITHOUT knowing what the result will be. Without out-of-game-knowledge there is absolutely no reason to believe that shooting the starkid in the face will do anything other than kill the Starkid. Thus, shooting him in the face in no way represents a belief that the galaxy should die. You keep vacillating back and forth between claiming Shepard is making the decision based on having no knowledge of what the results will be and claiming that it's immoral to shoot the kid in the face because that will destroy all life in the galaxy. Can you not see how this is deeply contradictory and hypocritical?

robertthebard wrote...
Once I decided that my Shepard would trust their gut, I decided that they were human.  You know, I find it odd that you can condone doing nothing, or completely altering every living thing's base make up, organic or synthetic, with out consulting any of them, but find killing one race of being to preserve all the other races, both currently advanced, and every civilization that is to follow as being the ultimate evil.  Destroying the Reapers doesn't just save your cycle, it prevents future cycles as well.  This means that life evolves as it's meant to, instead of continueing a cycle that you believe is led by an untrustworthy being.  Yet, you trust it enough, since shooting the SC doesn't kill it, just triggers the end, to allow it to continue.  Will the Shepard that chose to destroy the Reapers be remembered as a war hero, or a war criminal?  The Shepard that chose to do nothing will be remembered only for what they allowed Liara to say about them in the time capsule.  How a Control Shepard is remembered will vary, depending on what is done with the Reapers, won't it?  Again, is there any way anyone can guarantee they won't slip into madness and believe that it's time to harvest again?

I realize, or am coming to, that you have a set belief on which ending should be chosen, and it suits you.  That's acceptable.  That you believe all are abhorrent is also acceptable.  That you have decided to judge someone else for not believing as you do, or, more accurately, for role playing What Would Shepard Do, is certainly the atmosphere of BSN, but doesn't make your opinion of what that Shepard does any more or less valid than the opinion of the one that chose to play that way.  You'll notice that I don't comment in the "support group" threads for endings.  I don't post there because I don't buy into any of them as the absolute best answer.  I have been able to play two Shepards to where it matters, and both of them have chosen to destroy the Reapers, and end their millenium long reign of terror.  Whether you agree, or disagree with my logic is irrelevent, I didn't do it to please you.  I did it because, after being forced to swallow the bitter pill of "I survived a shot that would have ripped a shuttle in half", preventing this from ever happening again was foremost in my mind, and has been my goal since I became aware of it.  Buy it, don't buy it, I don't care.  This is the way that my Shepards played out.

Right. You're content in your genocide. I get it. You're confident that murdering an entire allied race is less bad than asking the entire universe to accept change. You'd rather destroy those who are different from you than learn from them. You believe Shepard is incapable of maintaining self-control long enough even to destroy his foe if he used Control, so you are forced to murder an entire race due to your certainty that he would be too weak to prevent himself from going insane in the time it takes to drive the Reapers into the sun. I understand.

All those things: the weakness, the hatred of change, they may be true of your Shepard, but they aren't necessarily true of anyone else's. Yes, the destroy ending makes sense for a shepard who is terrified of change, who believes that changing someone is worse than murdering their entire race, who doubts his own self control to the extent that he's willing to murder an entire innocent race (and possibly countless unknown other races) because doing so is less horrifying than the darkness he knows he is capable of if he were to get power for even a few weeks.

You're right that I have a favored ending. It's called the big purple button. It's the ending where you take the elevator back down to a room where some race that wasn't an idiot built an extra bit on the Crucible... a bit that turns the Starkid off. You push that button, the starkid turns off, and the chips fall where they may. 

It's an ending that's sane and sensible and hopeful and bittersweet. It's an ending that could have been added without devaluing the other endings. It's an ending that doens't play god, unlike all the endings that exist.

That's the entire point of this thread - read the title. ALL were thematically revolting. ALL. There isn't a single one that's acceptable. They're all so unremittingly horrible that they've rendered what was previously my favorite game of all time completely unplayable. The only reason I'm here is out of hope that someday, maybe decades in the future when they remake the game, someone will add an ending that isn't a monstrous god-playing insane nonsensical unpredictable atrocity.

Where have I said that any of them are any good?  In fact, I believe I have said that none of them were.  I find them to be so distasteful that I don't even play through them.  2 of 12 games have completed the entire game, the rest of my games end in London, at the beam.  If you're not ending there, then you're doing something wrong.  That is where the game breaks for me, every single thing after that is irrelevant.  Shuttles can enter atmo from orbit w/out burning up, and yet, I survive a laser blast that rips shuttles in half.  There's no problem disassociating even in game reality there, right?  Everybody knows that personal armor is better than shuttle armor, right?

So instead of beating your head against a wall trying to convince me how bad the endings are, why not check out the only thread I've made about the endings?  http://social.biowar.../index/13263411 .  Perhaps that will give you some insight into how I feel about it?  Check it out, not one reply, because there's absolutely no chance for a fairy tale "...and they all lived happily ever after" ending.  You see, at the end of the day, the majority of people that still harp on how bad the endings were are really looking for the fairy tale.  I would have loved to have the game end right there in London, especially compared to the alternatives.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SHARXTREME wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
The game absolutely in no way implies that there will never be war again. It doesn't imply that all disagreements have been removed. It doesn't imply that any individuality has been lost.

It just implies that nobody hates each other on the basis of RACE anymore. They may hate each other for other reasons, there may be wars in the future, but they won't be RACE WARS.

I have no idea why you believe any of the other things you suggest happen happen. There's absolutely no evidence that anyone loses any aspect of their personality other than racism.

So here's my question: a man is coming at you with a gun because he hates your race. You have a gun to defend yourself which has two settings: KILL and MAKE-NOT-RACIST. Are you saying it would be ethically preferable to kill this guy than to forcibly make him not racist?

No, game(Catalyst) states that everyone will understand each other and that that will ensure peace(in Destroy Catalyst says that peace won't last, but he says that Synthesis is ideal solution. Logical conclusion is that Synthesis is what can make the peace to last, according to Catalyst)
This is not fanfiction, this is logical argument against Catalyst's Synthesis option.
I didn't hear anything about making them not racist. Can you quote?(remember I'm still talking about choice, not about result) and I'm laying out a logical argument against that assumption.  
Catalyst's main problem is Organics-Synthetics war(or so he says), Synthesis will just make organics and synthetics to understand eachother. 
It NEVER, not at any point states that it will remove racism.(it will just remove conflict between Synthetics and organics) Correct me if I'm wrong with a direct quote.

The conflict between synthetics and organics is based on racism brought about by lack of understanding. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Do you disagree? 

I also believe that racism is usually based on an inability or unwillingness to understand another race. So making everyone understand each other is the same thing as curing racism... or at least it's probably functionally indistinguishable. Do you disagree?

SHARXTREME wrote...

So here's my question: a man is coming at you with a gun because he hates your race. You have a gun to defend yourself which has two settings: KILL and MAKE-NOT-RACIST. Are you saying it would be ethically preferable to kill this guy than to forcibly make him not racist? 

Because if you honestly believe it is more ethical to kill him than make him not racist, I actually understand that. Making him not racist with an anti-racism beam violates his free will, whereas killing him just ends his life. The question is, does that racist consider his racism such an intrinsic part of his identity that he'd rather die than not be racist anymore?

You see, that is the question that you must ask the racist, not the person some racist is threatening to kill.
And It doesn't matter what I believe at all. I'm being held at gun point.
Like Shepard when he is taken hostage by Catalyst.
And you are also playing exact same role by asking me such question.
YOU are giving me two choices. I Refuse. (ba-dum-tss)
You are playing God by putting me in that situation.(can you understand that conversational and logical mistake?)
I want a third, a fourth, a inumerable number of choices.

You don't understand... I agree that both choices suck and should be rejected.

What I don't agree with is portraying Synthesis as anything other than an anti-racism beam. If you agree with me that Synthesis is an anti-racism beam, but your objection is that you wouldn't feel ethically justified in using an anti-racism beam even when your life is in danger, then I completly understand and respect that objection.

Especially if you're a person who picks refuse, a decision I respect wholeheartedly.

You're entirely right that there should be other options. For instance, you should be able to shout at the guy who is running at you. "Stop, or I'll cure your racism" "Stop or I'll shoot you!" "Stop, or I'll either cure your racism or shoot you, depending on what you prefer!" 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 08:47 .

[SHARXTREME]

You don't understand... I agree that both choices suck and should be rejected.

What I don't agree with is portraying Synthesis as anything other than an anti-racism beam. If you agree with me that Synthesis is an anti-racism beam, but your objection is that you wouldn't feel ethically justified in using an anti-racism beam even when your life is in danger, then I completly understand and respect that objection.

You reject both choices, and I reject the whole situation where YOU are giving me that choices.

You have painted the situation where you have taken hostage me and some racist, put a gun in his hand, put me at the end of his gun and gave me the gun that can fire in two modes: kill or rewrite and gave me the first shot. While you're awaiting the result.
I chose to refuse both of your choices and shoot you instead of shooting the racist.
That is exact description what I feel in the ending and why I Refuse. Because you assumed role that is endangering both me and that racist. Hope that makes it clear.

The conflict between synthetics and organics is based on racism brought about by lack of understanding. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Do you disagree?

I also believe that racism is usually based on an inability or unwillingness to understand another race. So making everyone understand each other is the same thing as curing racism... or at least it's probably functionally indistinguishable,

That can be argued with.
First: I will repeat myself, Green Synthesis beam makes organic and synthetics understand each other. Game never, not at any point states that it cures racism. Why would that beam make Salarians not racist towards Krogans, Cerberus towards everybody else. Game never states that.
Catalyst tries to make just one conflict go away, organics vs Synthetics.(peace between them)
Second:
But, understanding alone can't cure racism.
Racism is not about mutual misunderstanding, never was.
It is about conviction that some race is better, has more rights, has less limitations etc.
If Green Understanding Beam removes personal convictions than it can cure racism, but it also cures everything else, and game never states that.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SHARXTREME wrote...
First: I will repeat myself, Green Synthesis beam makes organic and synthetics understand each other. Game never, not at any point states that it cures racism. Why would that beam make Salarians not racist towards Krogans, Cerberus towards everybody else. Game never states that.
Catalyst tries to make just one conflict go away, organics vs Synthetics.(peace between them)
Second:
But, understanding alone can't cure racism.
Racism is not about mutual misunderstanding, never was.
It is about conviction that some race is better, has more rights, has less limitations etc.
If Green Understanding Beam removes personal convictions than it can cure racism, but it also cures everything else, and game never states that.

Ok. I was using curing racism as a rhetorical tool to represent something I felt was a functional analogue: alleviating hatred based on a lack of understanding. If you'd rather I just say the beam removes misunderstandings (rather than curing racism) I can argue that instead.

Now, instead of a beam that cures racism, we'll agree that the green beam is a tool that allows people to communicate more easily and understand each other.

That actually improves my argument and makes it stronger, and removes much of the ethical concerns.

Now, you are saying that if someone is trying to kill you because he believes something that is false, you'd rather let him kill you than alleviate this misunderstanding or defend yourself.

If you believe the green beam is just something that promotes understanding and enhances interracial communication (rather than actually altering someone's mindset, the way the curing racism would do), then why would you hesitate to use it?

I hesitated to use it because I was afraid it was forcibly taking away a part of someone's personality: the racist part. Now you insist it isn't even doing that.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 09:26 .

[Oxspit]

SHARXTREME wrote...

Oxspit wrote...
Personally, I really like the tone of that kind of ending. You don't finish with a resounding victory (although it should really be seen in that light - you actually do break the cycle), you finish with a 'what now?'

And, ultimately, I would have thought the writers would prefer that kind of thing because, well.... sequels.

Actually, I'm just going to take this opportunity to shamelessly recycle the outline I came up with in another thread (with a few edits) about how I thought the IT could be handled, which had a similar kind of ending:

Your ending version coressponds with some of my thoughts. But it's not in the story, they won't change it that way.
The bolded part is still the biggest mistery to me. Why did writers sabotage the Mass Effect?
To destroy the franchise?
I just can't find any logical explanation, because writers don't want to talk about endings at all. 

I know, right? I mean... you almost wonder whether or not it was some kind of noble act or something. The writers got an inkling of the awful things EA were going to do with the franchise, so they burned it down.

Yeah,........ probably not.

Best I can do is rush-job, deadline looming while out of one's depth style incompetence story.

Person(s) involved take over franchise at the last minute (well, in the third act). Originally intended ending (DA) is considered too bleak or hard - possibly the big, bad EA actually went and vetoed it (boo!).

This person(s) involved in a bit of a tizzy, though. Brainstorming sessions are called. No awesome ideas emerge. Person(s) involved really like the matrix and think the singularity is rad, though... and, like, they've got this ready made ending structure left by the original author.

Sure, it was designed for a dark energy arc (and, strictly, that's the only thing that was definitely vetoed/decided against right?), but if we substitute the DA part of the reapers motivation for something rad like synthetics vs organics (how can that one get old?) and throw in a singularity arc, mix with some super-deep philosophy and shake vigorously - how can that not be awesome? Amirite fellas?

And, yeah, I'm more or less aware of the Leviathan vs synthesis thing. I don't think the 'synthesis invalidation' is deliberate, exactly. I think the reapers as established are just so incoherently incompatible with the catalyst/crucible thing that you just can't bring them back into the story without managing to cause a jarring sensation with something in the ending. There's a very good reason Harbinger has no dialogue in this story.

If they're smart, they'll avoid any crucible exposition like the plague for similar reasons. When you've got something as incoherent and contrived as that thing is relative to the rest of the story, well, if you're smart you'll just move the story along really, really fast and try to keep people focussing too hard on it.

That said, I may well end up buying Leviathan if it at least allows me to remember the reapers as being cool for a little while and pretend the catalyst isn't there (which is to say if they keep the catalyst exposition to a minimum).

[SHARXTREME]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

SHARXTREME wrote...
First: I will repeat myself, Green Synthesis beam makes organic and synthetics understand each other. Game never, not at any point states that it cures racism. Why would that beam make Salarians not racist towards Krogans, Cerberus towards everybody else. Game never states that.
Catalyst tries to make just one conflict go away, organics vs Synthetics.(peace between them)
Second:
But, understanding alone can't cure racism.
Racism is not about mutual misunderstanding, never was.
It is about conviction that some race is better, has more rights, has less limitations etc.
If Green Understanding Beam removes personal convictions than it can cure racism, but it also cures everything else, and game never states that.

Ok. I was using curing racism as a rhetorical tool to represent something I felt was a functional analogue: alleviating hatred based on a lack of understanding. If you'd rather I just say the beam removes misunderstandings (rather than curing racism) I can argue that instead.

Now, instead of a beam that cures racism, we'll agree that the green beam is a tool that allows people to communicate more easily and understand each other.

That actually improves my argument and makes it stronger, and removes much of the ethical concerns.


If you believe the green beam is just something that promotes understanding and enhances interracial communication (rather than actually altering someone's mindset, the way the curing racism would do), then why would you hesitate to use it?

I hesitated to use it because I was afraid it was forcibly taking away a part of someone's personality: the racist part. Now you insist it isn't even doing that.

2. Now, you are saying that if someone is trying to kill you because he believes something that is false, you'd rather let him kill you than alleviate this misunderstanding or defend yourself.

 
I have never. ever said that in second quote.
I just said that I reject your putting me and that imagined racist in that situation based solely on your conviction that racist will try to kill me and that I can only defend myself if I kill him first or rewrite him.
How can you not see that you'r using exact same "logic" as the Catalyst here? 
You are the enemy to both me and that imagined racist. And you are making three major logical mistakes here:
1. You are presuming that Imagined Racist will kill me unless I do exactly what You tell me too
2. You are bigger racist then actual imagined racist because you are putting us both in position based only on racism
3. You forgot that both me and imagined racist can instead turn our guns against you because you are our common enemy

 
Sometimes you are answering your own questions and trying to put that answers in my mouth.(see how that works both ways)
But get this, This is very important.
It is understandable.You are building your argument based on your convictions. This right here is why understanding alone cannot end conflict. And I can presume that both of us are not racist and we are still in conflict. 
Therefore Synthesis cannot bring peace if it doesn't remove individuality completely, but instead must connect us in some collective mind to prevent any conflict or erase our differences,  make us the same.
Wars are fought for million reasons, land, hunger, water, race, bad day, deity, accident, you name it. It isn't even based on convictions only, let alone on lack of understanding. 

Basically whole "Synthesis" ending is pure logical impossibility and complete nonsense, and on top of that it's completely amoral.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

SHARXTREME wrote...

2. Now, you are saying that if someone is trying to kill you because he believes something that is false, you'd rather let him kill you than alleviate this misunderstanding or defend yourself.

 
I have never. ever said that in second quote.
I just said that I reject your putting me and that imagined racist in that situation based solely on your conviction that racist will try to kill me and that I can only defend myself if I kill him first or rewrite him.
How can you not see that you'r using exact same "logic" as the Catalyst here? 
You are the enemy to both me and that imagined racist. And you are making three major logical mistakes here:
1. You are presuming that Imagined Racist will kill me unless I do exactly what You tell me too
2. You are bigger racist then actual imagined racist because you are putting us both in position based only on racism
3. You forgot that both me and imagined racist can instead turn our guns against you because you are our common enemy

 
Sometimes you are answering your own questions and trying to put that answers in my mouth.(see how that works both ways)
But get this, This is very important.
It is understandable.You are building your argument based on your convictions. This right here is why understanding alone cannot end conflict. And I can presume that both of us are not racist and we are still in conflict. 
Therefore Synthesis cannot bring peace if it doesn't remove individuality completely, but instead must connect us in some collective mind to prevent any conflict or erase our differences,  make us the same.
Wars are fought for million reasons, land, hunger, water, race, bad day, deity, accident, you name it. It isn't even based on convictions only, let alone on lack of understanding. 

Basically whole "Synthesis" ending is pure logical impossibility and complete nonsense, and on top of that it's completely amoral.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to demonstrate the logical conclusions of the contradictory statements you are making. Let me outline the things I believe you have indicated in the last few pages. Tell me what you disagree with.

1. You don't believe that the green beam cures racism
2. You believe the green beam allows everyone to better understand each other
3. The green beam prevents the Reapers from killing everyone
4. It is immoral to use the green beam.

If one of those statements is incorrect, please clarify your actual belief and your area of disagreement with that statement.

You have provided no evidence that the green beam does anything other than increase understanding. Nothing in the ending slides suggests that anything has happened other than increasing understanding, and granting those synthetics who wanted to experience emotions the ability to experience emotions.

The only shred of evidence you have when you wildly speculate that the green beam does anything other than increasing understanding is a quote from the catalyst that he believes the green beam will create long-lasting peace. However, if you listen to that entire conversation in context, it becomes clear that he believes that increased understanding (the one thing the beam is confirmed to provide) will create this lasting peace.  Whether or not he's right - whether or not increased understanding will create lasting peace - is irrelevant. There is still no evidence anywhere that the green beam has any influence on a person's identity other than increasing understanding. Anything else you claim it does is thus completely unrelated to reality or the text in question.

Once I have clarification as to whether you agree or disagree with these statements, I can explain my interpretations in a way that may be easier for you to understand.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 08 août 2012 - 11:43 .