261 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Huitzil wrote...

Framing this as "oh this is about how far you would go to save the galaxy" misses another point, even beyond the point that "this wasn't what the game was about until the last 20 minutes".

Namely, that the scenario given to us to allegedly test how far we would go is very, very stupid. It makes no sense. It is contradicted thematically and factually. It doesn't matter what we would do when presented with this choice because the choice is nonsensical even within the logic of the Mass Effect world.It's like asking us "would you murder and eat a handicapped infant if not doing so meant allowing New York to be nuked off the map". The only answer to that question is "That is stupid, that would never happen, and anyone who ever believed those were his only choices is an idiot with no critical thinking skills."

But the final choices of the Crucible were being built up through the entirety of the game.  It's not a scenario that's meant to test how far you'll go, I don't think, but rather an unfortunate circumstance that, while difficult to deal with, is hardly unexpected in a victory against what is essentially a galactic force of nature.  Destroy would likely seem the safest route to someone actually in this situation, but it doesn't discriminate synthetics.  Why would it?  It was designed by races that hated synthetics.  Synthesis grants what the Geth already had, the ability to know each other's minds while (post Legion's Reaper upgrades) maintaining their own individuality.  Whoever implimented that function apparently saw the rift between organic and synthetic life as a solvable problem.  Control is control, your will becomes their will, no collateral damage to the organics or perceived collateral damage to the synthetics.  It's not a situation where you're necesarilly required to throw aside your morals.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:35 .

[dreman9999]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

I'd rather die or doom the planet to die than cross my own personal lines to survive.

So the lives of the trillions of others, from dozens of speices mean nothing to you? You would stand to your morals, rather than do what was nessasary for the survival of the galaxy?

Well I think the point was that in a hypothetical situation (or a video game) it's easy to make a decision like that because logically it makes sense to pick trillions over dozens. However, if any of us were placed in a real situation where that decision was for some reason was totally dependent on us (that's highly unlikely to ever happen even in war) it would not be that simple.

It was not even a simlpe choice in the game. I loved EDI( like a daughter) but making that choice was hard to make.

I adored EDI. However, it did make it a difficult choice. Because in a fictional world I find it very easy to approach things from a logical standpoint or a "who cares" attitude. Either/or.

However, logic is often taken out of the equation when it comes to actually having to cross the line with real, long lasting consequences on the line.

Yes, with a video game it easy to be detached but this is a roleplaying game where you can play a role inntementy. I don't play detached when playing my Shepard. He is broken now for doing this, and if it was real I would still pick destory.

[dreamgazer]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

But then I thought of Palaven, Thessia, Tuchanka and every other planet who was fighting the Reapers at that moment...And I crossed it. 

And you were rewarded for it. I didn't see Palaven in the destroy epilogue (I think it's in the synthesis portion), but the reaction on Thessia and Tuchanka was very satisfying. 

[Reptilian Rob]

dreman9999 wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

I'd rather die or doom the planet to die than cross my own personal lines to survive.

So the lives of the trillions of others, from dozens of speices mean nothing to you? You would stand to your morals, rather than do what was nessasary for the survival of the galaxy?

Well I think the point was that in a hypothetical situation (or a video game) it's easy to make a decision like that because logically it makes sense to pick trillions over dozens. However, if any of us were placed in a real situation where that decision was for some reason was totally dependent on us (that's highly unlikely to ever happen even in war) it would not be that simple.

It was not even a simlpe choice in the game. I loved EDI( like a daughter) but making that choice was hard to make.

I adored EDI. However, it did make it a difficult choice. Because in a fictional world I find it very easy to approach things from a logical standpoint or a "who cares" attitude. Either/or.

However, logic is often taken out of the equation when it comes to actually having to cross the line with real, long lasting consequences on the line.

Yes, with a video game it easy to be detached but this is a roleplaying game where you can play a role inntementy. I don't play detached when playing my Shepard. He is broken now for doing this, and if it was real I would still pick destory.

Yes, this.

Plus if you are 100% detached while playing a game, there is something horribly wrong with you. 

[Huitzil]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Huitzil wrote...
Namely, that the scenario given to us to allegedly test how far we would go is very, very stupid. It makes no sense. It is contradicted thematically and factually.

It was before the EC, not after.

And rule of thumb with space operatics is that the story never has a true narritive flow, it twists and turns and does not follow a general theme. Not saying that the original endings were great here, they sucked major donkey balls. But the EC fixed the nonsense and turned ME back into an operatic voyage. 

..."Space operas have no narrative flow" and "have no theme"? Are you on mescaline? No, I'm serious, are you on some kind of dissociative hallucinogen, or are you some kind of robot designed to have the wrong answer to everything?

Star Wars is a space opera. If Return of the Jedi ended with the Emperor telling Luke "The Empire is necessary for the universe's survival. Your only choices from here are to strike me down and assume my throne as the new Emperor, destroy the Death Star but in doing so kill all the droids like R2 and 3PO, or make peace with us and work together with the Empire from now on", and Luke actually picks one of the three choices given to him by the Emperor, Return of the Jedi would be a terrible movie. No matter what choice he picked.

[dreman9999]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Huitzil wrote...

Framing this as "oh this is about how far you would go to save the galaxy" misses another point, even beyond the point that "this wasn't what the game was about until the last 20 minutes".

Namely, that the scenario given to us to allegedly test how far we would go is very, very stupid. It makes no sense. It is contradicted thematically and factually. It doesn't matter what we would do when presented with this choice because the choice is nonsensical even within the logic of the Mass Effect world.It's like asking us "would you murder and eat a handicapped infant if not doing so meant allowing New York to be nuked off the map". The only answer to that question is "That is stupid, that would never happen, and anyone who ever believed those were his only choices is an idiot with no critical thinking skills."

But the final choices of the Crucible were being built up through the entirety of the game.  It's not a scenario that's meant to test how far you'll go, I don't think, but rather an unfortunate circumstance that, while difficult to deal with, is hardly unexpecting in a victory against what is essentially a galactic force of nature.  Destroy would likely seem the safest route to someone actually in this situation, but it doesn't discriminate synthetics.  Why would it?  It was designed by races that hated synthetics.  Synthesis grants what the Geth already had, the ability to know each other's minds while (post Legion's Reaper upgrades) maintaining their own individuality.  Control is control, your will becomes their will, no collateral damage to the organics or perceived collateral damage to the synthetics.  It's not a situation where you're necesarilly required to throw aside your morals.

But control enslaves synthetics and organics. It's still is morally wrong.

[Reptilian Rob]

dreamgazer wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

But then I thought of Palaven, Thessia, Tuchanka and every other planet who was fighting the Reapers at that moment...And I crossed it. 

And you were rewarded for it. I didn't see Palaven in the destroy epilogue (I think it's in the synthesis portion), but the reaction on Thessia and Tuchanka was very satisfying. 

It's already been confirmed by Gamble that Palaven survies the BEST destroy ending. So, yes my line was for something. 

[txmn1016]

Really insightful post Rob.

"There was never a good choice, and there was never a bad choice. It was just how far you were willing to cross over your self imposed boundries to do what was nessasary. In war, you do what you must to survive...And that usually means that your morals are irrelevant."

I think the survival part is particularly important--and a player's specific choice is going to be determined by what survival means to that person in the context of both the personal threat and the threat to the entire galaxy. Who's survival is important? Is it survival of the individual? Survival of the human race? Survival of every race? Which of those is most important? And how far would a person be willing to go to achieve that?

An interesting question to consider in light of the EC. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You're always a welcome voice around here.

[Elite Midget]

I punched out the Reapers and won with no loses and got back with my LI without compromising my morals. It's what my 3 games of work ended up achieving.

[WizenSlinky0]

Geneaux486 wrote...

[It's not a situation where you're necesarilly required to throw aside your morals.

I disagree to an extent depending on what morals you have. If you don't find slavery, genocide, or what amounts to torture to be immoral then yes I suppose you don't have to put them aside.

Destroy forces you to commit genocide over the reapers. A sentient species that is enslaved.

Control breaks the slavery over the reapers and then enslaves them to your will.

Synthesis is forcing your own will upon other, unwilling participants. Your own opinion, or the catalysts opinion, of what is "perfected evolution".

I don't question why someone would decide to pick one of those choices for survival. I do question how anyone could consider them moral choices. The only "moral" choice would be to free the reapers from enslavement by destroying the citadel and the catalyst and then allow the situation to self-determinate.

[spirosz]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 My response.

That movie... was strange, but good.  

To the OP, does that somehow relate to the new dialogue system - no right or wrong - two choices (most of the time).

[Geneaux486]

dreman9999 wrote...
But control enslaves synthetics and organics. It's still is morally wrong.

Morally wrong, yes, but Shepard is not to blame.  Really this is true for any of the choices, as all of the mistakes, anger, misunderstandings, everything from this cycle, the previous cycles, and the Reapers themselves, it's all dumped onto Shepard's shoulders and he's forced to clean up the mess.  In my opinion, the blame rests on the Reapers, specifically the Catalyst, for bringing things to that point.  Shepard does the best that he can with what little he has to work with, no one could ask for more than that from someone who doesn't control the fabric of reality.  All that aside, which organics are being enslaved via control?  Are you still talking about the Reapers?  'Cause if so, it's them that put Shepard in this predicament to begin with, so they're kinda bringing it on themselves.

I disagree to an extent depending on what morals you have. If you don't find slavery, genocide, or what amounts to torture to be immoral then yes I suppose you don't have to put them aside.

Destroy forces you to commit genocide over the reapers. A sentient species that is enslaved.

Control breaks the slavery over the reapers and then enslaves them to your will.

Synthesis is forcing your own will upon other, unwilling participants. Your own opinion, or the catalysts opinion, of what is "perfected evolution".

I don't question why someone would decide to pick one of those choices for survival. I do question how anyone could consider them moral choices. The only "moral" choice would be to free the reapers from enslavement by destroying the citadel and the catalyst and then allow the situation to self-determinate.

Like I said, there's moral wrong-doing involved, but it is not Shepard's.  He didn't start the war with the Reapers, he didn't design the Crucible.  Whatever fate befalls the Reapers was brought on by their own actions.  What's important is taking into account the best interests of the innocent when your options are that limitted.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 04:41 .

[dreman9999]

Huitzil wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Huitzil wrote...
Namely, that the scenario given to us to allegedly test how far we would go is very, very stupid. It makes no sense. It is contradicted thematically and factually.

It was before the EC, not after.

And rule of thumb with space operatics is that the story never has a true narritive flow, it twists and turns and does not follow a general theme. Not saying that the original endings were great here, they sucked major donkey balls. But the EC fixed the nonsense and turned ME back into an operatic voyage. 

..."Space operas have no narrative flow" and "have no theme"? Are you on mescaline? No, I'm serious, are you on some kind of dissociative hallucinogen, or are you some kind of robot designed to have the wrong answer to everything?

Star Wars is a space opera. If Return of the Jedi ended with the Emperor telling Luke "The Empire is necessary for the universe's survival. Your only choices from here are to strike me down and assume my throne as the new Emperor, destroy the Death Star but in doing so kill all the droids like R2 and 3PO, or make peace with us and work together with the Empire from now on", and Luke actually picks one of the three choices given to him by the Emperor, Return of the Jedi would be a terrible movie. No matter what choice he picked.

Star wars had a very different theme. And the choices in the end of ME3 is build on the theme in ME1, which is what lenght would you take to defat an unbeatalble force. You missing this one thing, this form of choice in ME3 was in ME1 and 2. Also, the ending of ME3 are all different now.

[Reptilian Rob]

Huitzil wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Huitzil wrote...
Namely, that the scenario given to us to allegedly test how far we would go is very, very stupid. It makes no sense. It is contradicted thematically and factually.

It was before the EC, not after.

And rule of thumb with space operatics is that the story never has a true narritive flow, it twists and turns and does not follow a general theme. Not saying that the original endings were great here, they sucked major donkey balls. But the EC fixed the nonsense and turned ME back into an operatic voyage. 

..."Space operas have no narrative flow" and "have no theme"? Are you on mescaline? No, I'm serious, are you on some kind of dissociative hallucinogen, or are you some kind of robot designed to have the wrong answer to everything?

Star Wars is a space opera. If Return of the Jedi ended with the Emperor telling Luke "The Empire is necessary for the universe's survival. Your only choices from here are to strike me down and assume my throne as the new Emperor, destroy the Death Star but in doing so kill all the droids like R2 and 3PO, or make peace with us and work together with the Empire from now on", and Luke actually picks one of the three choices given to him by the Emperor, Return of the Jedi would be a terrible movie. No matter what choice he picked.

I see you have never read any Larry Niven, Robert Hienlien or Greg Bear. True space operatic has no cohenrent flow to it, it just doesn't. That's why it's called an "Operatic" and not a "Story." You've only mentioned movies, which is the last and most detached form of space opera in any genre because it's finite in it's telling and not continuing. 

Go see an opera and tell me there is a flow to that, that's why there are scenes in an opera. To break up the flow. Why do you think it's called Space "OPERA" and not Space "Story?"

Modifié par Reptilian Rob, 29 juin 2012 - 04:40 .

[WizenSlinky0]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, with a video game it easy to be detached but this is a roleplaying game where you can play a role inntementy. I don't play detached when playing my Shepard. He is broken now for doing this, and if it was real I would still pick destory.

It's not about attachment. It's about perception. The threat of consequence is inherently removed.

I'm attached to the characters. I can be sad over the loss of EDI. But I can't feel the pressure of reprecussions for the decision. Emotion without consequence tends to be superceded by logic.

[Reptilian Rob]

txmn1016 wrote...
An interesting question to consider in light of the EC. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You're always a welcome voice around here.

That's a sweet thing to say, thanks! I'm not perfect, but I try to be at least stable. haha

[dreamgazer]

spiros9110 wrote...

That movie... was strange, but good.  

Antichrist was really intriguing, until it descended into blatant physical, emotional, and thematic masochism in the final act. I love von Trier and his abrasive tonality, but he lost it there at the end.

[Huitzil]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I see you have never read any Larry Niven, Robert Hienlien or Greg Bear. True space operatic has no cohenrent flow to it, it just doesn't. That's why it's called an "Operatic" and not a "Story." You've only mentioned movies, which is the last and most detached form of space opera in any genre because it's finite in it's telling and not continuing. 

Go see an opera and tell me there is a flow to that, that's why there are scenes in an opera. To break up the flow. Why do you think it's called Space "OPERA" and not Space "Story?"

... Are you a Markov chain generator?

[dreman9999]

Geneaux486 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But control enslaves synthetics and organics. It's still is morally wrong.

Morally wrong, yes, but Shepard is not to blame.  Really this is true for any of the choices, as all of the mistakes, anger, misunderstandings, everything from this cycle, the previous cycles, and the Reapers themselves, it's all dumped onto Shepard's shoulders and he's forced to clean up the mess.  In my opinion, the blame rests on the Reapers, specifically the Catalyst, for bringing things to that point.  Shepard does the best that he can with what little he has to work with, no one could ask for more than that from someone who doesn't control the fabric of reality.  All that aside, which organics are being enslaved via control?  Are you still talking about the Reapers?  'Cause if so, it's them that put Shepard in this predicament to begin with, so they're kinda bringing it on themselves.

The same can be said for destroyand all the other endings. You just said the ops point.
And yes the organics are also enslaveed in control as well via force. They are alive but one something goes out of hand, the reaper would be there to force order. Do you not see that SHepard with control of the  reapers can impose order any way he wants? It's the same as it was before except Shep does not want to reap organics...Yet.

[Reptilian Rob]

Huitzil wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I see you have never read any Larry Niven, Robert Hienlien or Greg Bear. True space operatic has no cohenrent flow to it, it just doesn't. That's why it's called an "Operatic" and not a "Story." You've only mentioned movies, which is the last and most detached form of space opera in any genre because it's finite in it's telling and not continuing. 

Go see an opera and tell me there is a flow to that, that's why there are scenes in an opera. To break up the flow. Why do you think it's called Space "OPERA" and not Space "Story?"

... Are you a Markov chain generator?

I don't know, are you a sicence fiction literature student at a top tier university actually researching this stuff and not looking it up on wikilazy? 

Also, the Markov Chain is a MATHMATICAL formulation based on a set of equations changing formula from one state to another. It has no bearing or relevancy in this discussion unless you are an applied mathmatics major discussing how numeric values infuance patterns in literature or some BS like that. This is literature we're talking here, not the scary and defiled art of numbers. 

Modifié par Reptilian Rob, 29 juin 2012 - 04:47 .

[WizenSlinky0]

Geneaux486 wrote...


Like I said, there's moral wrong-doing involved, but it is not Shepard's.  He didn't start the war with the Reapers, he didn't design the Crucible.  Whatever fate befalls the Reapers was brought on by their own actions.  What's important is taking into account the best interests of the innocent when your options are that limitted.

You're rationlizing your decision. A decision in a fictional universe. Why?

It's Shepards decision to make and therefore the consequences of that decision are his fault and his fault alone. There is no passing blame. It doesn't matter if the circumstances requiring the decision is his fault or not. As soon as he makes that decision it's Shepard that is inflicting that consequence on the world.

The choice(s) may be logical but that doesn't make it moral. And it's ok for people to put survival over morality. I'm actually fairly sure none of us would be alive if everybody put morals first. But at least own up to it.

If your position was upheld none of us would own any responsibility for our decisions because they were a consequence of the enviroment we were placed in.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 29 juin 2012 - 04:46 .

[dreman9999]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, with a video game it easy to be detached but this is a roleplaying game where you can play a role inntementy. I don't play detached when playing my Shepard. He is broken now for doing this, and if it was real I would still pick destory.

It's not about attachment. It's about perception. The threat of consequence is inherently removed.

I'm attached to the characters. I can be sad over the loss of EDI. But I can't feel the pressure of reprecussions for the decision. Emotion without consequence tends to be superceded by logic.

But you still can play a character who does feel the reprecussions hence being a role playing game. It's still about attachment and how far you are willing to go with the role. I'm not saying you can't detach yourself, it is a fictional story, but you still have the option to attach your self as much as you want.

[Astartes Marine]

dreman9999 wrote...
But control enslaves synthetics and organics. It's still is morally wrong.

Assuming the Control ending is not Shepard just being given a false sense of control while the Reapers repurpose him...it's not enslaving anything really.  Nothing has changed with them, they're still under control of the catalyst.  Just that it's a different catalyst.
My problem with that ending is that I believe that is FAR too much power for one single man to have.  If you have a sudden personality shift and hate the galaxy then you have an armada of sentient starships that have ample experience in galactic purges.

With Synthesis I would say organics/synthetics are not ready.  There's still bigotry and hatred even for each other, to force such a sudden and incredibly life changing shift would cause unbelievable amounts of chaos.

For me, I picked Destroy.  The Reapers had to be stopped.  I still do not trust starbrat's word that ALL synthetics would die off as that would mean VIs are gone, most of the Quarians would now be dead as many of them have synthetic implants to integrate suit functionality, Shepard swould be dead since his implants are based off of Reaper tech...

Oh that's right, he's alive.

Sure it would take time, but they would rebuild, we always do.  We're tough and resilient like that.  We would all survive and be able to forge our own destinies and create our own future.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 29 juin 2012 - 04:49 .

[WizenSlinky0]

dreman9999 wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, with a video game it easy to be detached but this is a roleplaying game where you can play a role inntementy. I don't play detached when playing my Shepard. He is broken now for doing this, and if it was real I would still pick destory.

It's not about attachment. It's about perception. The threat of consequence is inherently removed.

I'm attached to the characters. I can be sad over the loss of EDI. But I can't feel the pressure of reprecussions for the decision. Emotion without consequence tends to be superceded by logic.

But you still can play a character who does feel the reprecussions hence being a role playing game. It's still about attachment and how far you are willing to go with the role. I'm not saying you can't detach yourself, it is a fictional story, but you still have the option to attach your self as much as you want.

I suppose. But again no matter how much you invest yourself I have a hard time anyone could reach the point where they believe those reprecussions have an actual impact on their everyday lives. An actual decision they have to live with, whose consequences may haunt them. Perhaps some people are that invested. I find it an odd thing to "want" though as it can break the barrier between reality and fiction.

I can't help but believe anyone who says the decision was "hard" is saying so relative of a fictional choice whether they believe that or not. Because I don't really want to consider the consequences of someone putting the same thought into as, say, whether to murder someone to save their own life or the life of someone close to them. If it effects you on the same level I'd say it's just as disturbing as feeling nothing over fictional characters.

[Huitzil]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Huitzil wrote...

Reptilian Rob wrote...

I see you have never read any Larry Niven, Robert Hienlien or Greg Bear. True space operatic has no cohenrent flow to it, it just doesn't. That's why it's called an "Operatic" and not a "Story." You've only mentioned movies, which is the last and most detached form of space opera in any genre because it's finite in it's telling and not continuing. 

Go see an opera and tell me there is a flow to that, that's why there are scenes in an opera. To break up the flow. Why do you think it's called Space "OPERA" and not Space "Story?"

... Are you a Markov chain generator?

I don't know, are you a sicence fiction literature student at a top tier university actually researching this stuff and not looking it up on wikilazy? 

Also, the Markov Chain is a MATHMATICAL formulation based on a set of equations changing formula from one state to another. It has no bearing or relevancy in this discussion unless you are an applied mathmatics major discussing how numeric values infuance patterns in literature or some BS like that. This is literature we're talking here, not the scary and defiled art of numbers. 

Markov chain generators are relevant because your posts are totally nonsensical and read like they don't come from an entity who understands language, but an equation fitting together words into things that look almost-but-not-really like coherent sentences.