164 réponses à ce sujet

[stevefox1200]

I understand what you are saying but its is such a weird choice for the developers to go against the normal "more-effort/ more reward" tradition of game endings. I get they wanted to avoid the "this is the bad ending, this the good ending" trap but to lock one of the endings makes it seem like the "best" one from a gameplay perspective

Not that this is the first game which made arguably the worst ending the hardest to get (Shin Megami Tensei 3's super ending was by FAR the darkest)

[DaBigDragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Crucible is nothing like that. Getting the test in the first place is a matter of luck. If your cycle didn't find the blueprints, you have no chance of passing it.

I think if you're going with the idea that it's a test, the construction of the Crucible itself is the test. The similar preparation and skill comes with acquiring the EMS value. Those that do poorly in acquiring EMS ostensibly fail the test (and eradicate their own species).

I assumed that lower EMS = crucible is damaged during transit due to lack of escort and that's why there's less options presented. Although, the Catalyst's tone does change a bit with lower EMS, which could support the test theory.

[UnstableMongoose]

Kalundume wrote...

*snip*

That is a common misconception about South African history. F.W. de Klerk was not an "Apartheid chief"; he was a political ally of Nelson Mandela.  De Klerk worked his way to the top of the system to help bring down Apartheid because he was part of a group of people within the majority party that knew that it was tearing their country apart. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work alongside Nelson Mandela.

I think you do not understand what I am trying to say. I know these are international forums and the translator is absolutely horrid sometimes (also, I am not always 100% clear--it might be my fault). Let me restate it:

My second paragraph which you have quoted is not a justification of the Catalyst's choices. It is an explanation that if Indoctrination Theory is true, then the options presented at the end are supposed to all seem very bad--it is the Reapers' way of controlling you and manipulating your choices.

Also, please familiarize yourself with this before you start brining the ****s into a video game discussion.

[PsyrenY]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Also, you force something onto others without consent.

Again, something Shepard would never do.

You mean Shepard polled the galaxy before releasing/extinguishing the Rachni? Or destroying an entire Batarian system? News to me.

DaBigDragon wrote...

I assumed that lower EMS = crucible is damaged during transit due to lack of escort and that's why there's less options presented. Although, the Catalyst's tone does change a bit with lower EMS, which could support the test theory.

Indeed, but it doesn't rule out the damage theory either. A damaged Crucible might be less effective at deviating him from his original programming.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 24 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Abreu Road]

Who needs rewards in videogames? We need art, dude!

[DJBare]

stevefox1200 wrote...

I understand what you are saying but its is such a weird choice for the developers to go against the normal "more-effort/ more reward" tradition of game endings. I get they wanted to avoid the "this is the bad ending, this the good ending" trap but to lock one of the endings makes it seem like the "best" one from a gameplay perspective

Not that this is the first game which made arguably the worst ending the hardest to get (Shin Megami Tensei 3's super ending was by FAR the darkest)

It's wierd because the delivery was so badly done, there was no concentration on the battle, you had a couple of scenes, but not much infornation to tell you "This is what my EMS is doing", the catalyst and the three options stole center stage in other words.

[stevefox1200]

DJBare wrote...]It's wierd because the delivery was so badly done, there was no concentration on the battle, you had a couple of scenes, but not much infornation to tell you "This is what my EMS is doing", the catalyst and the three options stole center stage in other words.

Yeah

They only real "feedback" you get from your EMS is your endings so it makes sense that you would connect EMS=Endings even if that was what they were not going for

I'm just going to say that the endgame was just botched beyond belief

[Kalundume]

DJBare wrote...

Kalundume wrote...
Morally speaking the one who tests the organics is not worth it. .... with all crimes commited by the Reapers, their tests are meaningless. Survival by all the cost is not the first predicate of sentient civilisation. Even ME3 confirms that in Edi/Shepard discussion about concentration camps.

Morals have nothing to do with it, because the protagonist is not aware it's a test, the crucible was started by the Reapers probably in the first cycle, the cycle that eventually completes the crucible passes the test.

Ok, your test idea is the very fact of constructing the crucible... I thought rather about the test of impossible choice
 outlined by the Catalyst. For me this choice is rejectable, as in my understanding of the world, there is always one more solution (contrary to the one of Bioware). Solutions outlined by the catalyst should be rejectable and some other solution should be possible thanks to all the team of Shepard and all of his war assets, but not because of EMS number, but because of their overall qualitative value.

Maybe that is plain stupid, but in real world everything has a probability of occurence, thus a victory over reapers too... without making one of their morally wrong 3 choices.

[Kalundume]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Kalundume wrote...

*snip*

That is a common misconception about South African history. F.W. de Klerk was not an "Apartheid chief"; he was a political ally of Nelson Mandela.  De Klerk worked his way to the top of the system to help bring down Apartheid because he was part of a group of people within the majority party that knew that it was tearing their country apart. He received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work alongside Nelson Mandela.

I think you do not understand what I am trying to say. I know these are international forums and the translator is absolutely horrid sometimes (also, I am not always 100% clear--it might be my fault). Let me restate it:

My second paragraph which you have quoted is not a justification of the Catalyst's choices. It is an explanation that if Indoctrination Theory is true, then the options presented at the end are supposed to all seem very bad--it is the Reapers' way of controlling you and manipulating your choices.

Also, please familiarize yourself with this before you start brining the ****s into a video game discussion.

For my english, thank you, I read you without any translation. As for De Klerk, maybe, I am effectively not so closely familiar with South African history, I only know he was the last leader of that country before its revolution and dismantling of Apartheid system.

As for a godwin law you cite, just one quotation from the article you referenced from Wikipedia:

The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, since a **** comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.

it has no application here, because the game itself uses 2WW as a reference and it speaks about genocide, racial superiority, eugenics et al. everywhere and by all possible multimedia means ... what else would you think will come to my mind ?!

You said before:

If any of the Crucible's choices were obviously the "good" choice, then
it would be a pointless exercise to have the choices anyway.

And I say, none of Crucible's choices are acceptable. The lack of Shepard's choices is the real problem in this game and a blame for Bioware lack of effort. In real life there is always yet another choice not anticipated by some "architect" thing.

As for indoctrination theory, this may be only way out to keep the current dialogue ... still there is a lack of a game solution. If it happens all in the mind of Shepard, then who finishes the conflict ? if in this indoctrination theory we actually make some choice with real world impact then what is the sense of "red" ending (reapers suicide themselves willingly ? that has no sense) ... and then the actual ending is a hypothetical extended DLC.

[UnstableMongoose]

Kalundume wrote...

*snip*

The Wikipedia article does say that about Godwin's, but in actual use on the Internet, Godwin's Law is usually declared even in circumstances where things similar to **** doctrine are happening.

The reason for this is that the ****s have more prejudicial than probative value. Essentially, when you mention the ****s, the emotional preconceptions that you bring up are stronger than the argumentative points that you have--so it is usually better to use another example unless the topic at hand is directly involved with the **** Germany.

I believe that some of what you say is true, but my initial point still stands: in response to the beginning of this thread, the fact that the three options presented by the Catalyst are not rewards shouldn't be bothering. Your reward is ending the Cycle. The choices at the end are the last hard decision that Shepard has to make. It would cheapen the game's overtones of sacrifice and tought ethical decisions if the Crucible was just a big "I win" button sitting around in space.

[PsyrenY]

Kalundume wrote...


As for a godwin law you cite, just one quotation from the article you referenced from Wikipedia:

The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, since a **** comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy.

it has no application here, because the game itself uses 2WW as a reference and it speaks about genocide, racial superiority, eugenics et al. everywhere and by all possible multimedia means ... what else would you think will come to my mind ?!

Except Synthesis is not "a known mainstay of **** Germany." YOU are the one making that association, therefore YOU are committing the fallacy.

By your logic, Transhumanism is ****sm too. Eugenics is based on racist/discriminatory beliefs about certain physical characteristics being aesthetically superior to others; transhumanism meanwhile is about actual biotechnological improvement.

[DaBigDragon]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Also, you force something onto others without consent.

Again, something Shepard would never do.

You mean Shepard polled the galaxy before releasing/extinguishing the Rachni? Or destroying an entire Batarian system? News to me.

DaBigDragon wrote...

I assumed that lower EMS = crucible is damaged during transit due to lack of escort and that's why there's less options presented. Although, the Catalyst's tone does change a bit with lower EMS, which could support the test theory.

Indeed, but it doesn't rule out the damage theory either. A damaged Crucible might be less effective at deviating him from his original programming.

AH, now that's a good point! I forgot that he said "The Crucible changed me. Created new...possibilites". That does indeed support the "less EMS = damaged Crucible = less ability to change the Catalyst's solution = less choices"

[Kalundume]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

The Wikipedia article does say that about Godwin's, but in actual use on the Internet, Godwin's Law is usually declared even in circumstances where things similar to **** doctrine are happening.

The reason for this is that the ****s have more prejudicial than probative value. Essentially, when you mention the ****s, the emotional preconceptions that you bring up are stronger than the argumentative points that you have--so it is usually better to use another example unless the topic at hand is directly involved with the **** Germany.

I believe that some of what you say is true, but my initial point still stands: in response to the beginning of this thread, the fact that the three options presented by the Catalyst are not rewards shouldn't be bothering. Your reward is ending the Cycle. The choices at the end are the last hard decision that Shepard has to make. It would cheapen the game's overtones of sacrifice and tought ethical decisions if the Crucible was just a big "I win" button sitting around in space.

Anyway, without entering into detailed considerations, for alternative example ... the problem is, that nothing comparable has ever happened in human history before (I discussed it somewhere else I believe on BSN, comparing between "domestic" like Ukrainian famine or Rwanda's civil war and "external" genocides - the origin of the events was not the same and cannot be directly applied to ME3's Reapers), the "industrial expansive war genocide" appeared somehow only in one single historical case ... and it happens to be 2WW (if you know another one, let me know, I always like to increase my historical knowledge).

You say, the reward is the ending of the cycle ... but I say "by the cost of your humanity/alienity"; this is not what we know that had empirically happened in the real world, because there are many examples contradicting that; Implying that it is the only way is injustified and at minimum shows that BW did not analyse ramifications of what they had proposed (just thrown 3 colored choices to wrap up the +100 hours game series in 10 minutes of pseudointellectual rubbish). Today, the game forces upon me a choice that I would not have made.

The only known comparable case that you want to reject shows that we had actually managed to maintain our "humanity", because there were milions that valued the human values over their own lives and actively looked for the solution, they had succeded.

My point is: survival is not the highest value of humanity.

[Kalundume]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Except Synthesis is not "a known mainstay of **** Germany." YOU are the one making that association, therefore YOU are committing the fallacy.

By your logic, Transhumanism is ****sm too. Eugenics is based on racist/discriminatory beliefs about certain physical characteristics being aesthetically superior to others; transhumanism meanwhile is about actual biotechnological improvement.

Synthesis, figuratively speaking, existed in the III Reich system, there were some european nations that were judged "worthy" of "arianisation", so many of them was "proposed" (so to say so) a reproductory "aliance", so it falls into this framework. For details refer to the relevant literature.

I do not say anything against transhumanism, I can perfectly understand that people need to use the technology to improve their lives (artificial hearts, prothetics, etc.), I liked quite a lot the considerations on this subject in "Deus Ex Human Revolution",

However, the ME3 synthesis ending is an imposed fundamental change of any single sentient individual in the mass effect world, WITHOUT asking him/her a damn thing, and THAT is not acceptable morally.

All 3 endings are imposed, and not coming from the free will of Shepard and above all, all other joint civilisations fighting Reapers, thus all of these 3 endings are morally wrong.

Modifié par Kalundume, 24 avril 2012 - 07:44 .

[PsyrenY]

Kalundume wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Except Synthesis is not "a known mainstay of **** Germany." YOU are the one making that association, therefore YOU are committing the fallacy.

By your logic, Transhumanism is ****sm too. Eugenics is based on racist/discriminatory beliefs about certain physical characteristics being aesthetically superior to others; transhumanism meanwhile is about actual biotechnological improvement.

Synthesis, figuratively speaking, existed in the III Reich system, there were some european nations that were judged "worthy" of "arianisation", so many of them was "proposed" (so to say so) a reproductory "aliance", so it falls into this framework. For details refer to the relevant literature.

No, it really did not. There are no scientific benefits to being Aryan - blond hair and blue eyes are not objectively better than any other such variation.

Furthermore, eugenics is quite simply impossible - no matter how stringently you control or cull a population, it can still produce significant variation via mutation. And even when it doesn't, streamlining the strengths of a population also streamlines its weaknesses, particularly genetic defects like hemophilia.

But nanotechnology DOES have objective benefits, especially in the ME universe. For example, the Quarians used it to strengthen their immune systems, which then provided vectors for the Geth to supercharge the same. And human soldiers use ocular implants to assist with targeting and perception. Is that eugenics? Of course not.