The Night Mammoth wrote...
memorysquid wrote...
I think you'll find you managed a category error and a false dichotomy in one short sentence.
I think you'll find it was also completely intentional.
My point was that since Shepard's written character is not mine and the options offered are not how I would have reacted, and since their exposition of what is physically possible is incoherent with my own, it is simply inappropriate to evaluate the ethical choices in the game by any standards but the game's. If you intentionally wrote the above to be non-responsive to that point, why write it at all?
Control lies with the author who's dictated the nature
The nature of the choices?
We don't know them, hence these discussions, and we have no definitive way of knowing them.
The writers seem pretty straightforward about the nature of the choices. They are stated, along with probable outcomes, and then you make a choice.
and resolution of every dilemma in game.
Which we also don't know.
So it's all down to interpretation, and I simply don't care for that kind of argument.
Again, they let us know, within some timeframe what the resolution is. Are we both talking about ME3? How is it that you encountered a bunch of undefined dilemmas that had no observable outcomes?
Within that constraint, they've cast Shepard as the decision maker and you get to choose which prewritten responses get enacted.
Other than the fact that we don't fully know what the responses are, whether it's Shepard choosing or me choosing is frankly irrelevant. I'm the one that walks Shepard up to which choice I want. The reasons for doing so are my own.
Sure they are, and they could simply be that you prefer red to blue or green. But the discussion here is of the ethical implications of the choices, and how that ethics plays out in the game, not our own, universe.
The game could be cast from a first person perspective; it just happens not to be. From your asserted perspective, none of the choices are morally abominable because they are simply choices about which images play on a screen, but a number of people are claiming synthesis is morally abominable which means they are involved in a thought experiment about it really occurring.
Well yeah, that's kind of the point. I don't know exactly how you'd explain what you're talking about, but it seems to me that, simply put, this discussion is pointless because it's about something fictional, and that certain people are wrong to label anyone based on their choice within the fiction. Would I be right? Almost right? Or way off? I'm genuinely not certain.
Way off, I think.
1) Nothing wrong with discussing the ethics of a fictional situation. See, it wasn't that hard to describe what I was doing.
2) Videogame simulated genocide is nothing like actual genocide, but the person who enjoys role-playing genocide by proxy is not someone likely to be swell. If you search, through play acting, to enact unethical behaviors, then you've got issues. And who is talking about "labelling" anyone? Some people are asserting that, in the context of the game, synthesis is a horrific choice. Others disagree. A discussion is ongoing. Again, not to hard to figure out what is happening.
Retour en haut
