1027 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Maybe I should throw Anderson's corpse into the beam.

I'm dying here!

Shepard: ... ugh! 'Maybe a little soft around the edges', your whole body is soft, fat bastard!
Catalyst: That won't work. It must be you, if you do it, is not forced.
Shepard: Shut up!

[Guglio08]

Captiosus77 wrote...

TAO is presenting a classic strawman argument just to keep arguing why she hates the endings. Any attempts to point out the reality of the game (that metagaming is inescapable during the course of the trilogy, or that even if you suspend metagaming the four choices have the same direct net effect for Shepard [death!]), are met with subsequent reiterations of the strawman.

Rejection is the second most morally objectionable choice Shepard could make. Why? Because it forces Shepard's morality on the ENTIRE GALAXY and dooms ALL advanced civilizations to death - and metagaming isn't necessary to know widescale death is the end result as it's repeated, by damn near every central character, throughout the game. Only synthesis is more morally reprehensible.

But, whatever. This entire thread is meaningless as TAO will just continue to use Catalyst style flawed logic to justify still being angry.

I would like to point this post out for being extremely spot on.

If you were in Shepard's shoes, this is what you know at the end of the game:
- Your cycle is the only one that has ever created the Crucible and deployed it
- You have made it to the place you need to be to activate it
- You have poured your entire life's work and the full force of all the races of your cycle into protecting the Crucible
- You have four choices ahead of you

Regardless of "metagaming," Shepard can either doom his cycle to death or take a leap of faith on one of the presented "solutions." If his leap fails, everyone dies. If he refuses to choose, everyone dies. If the leap succeeds, maybe everyone surivives? Logically, you HAVE to take that leap. The three choices can effectively be considered one choice, split into three flavours that you can select from. 

It's either, absolute failure, or potential success. Saying that absolute failure is the only "true" choice is completely and morally illogical.

[Elite Midget]

Well seeing that Shepard dies in Synthesis and Control... There's no way of those Shepards knowing the Reapers kept their word.

[The Eruptionist]

There are three central reasons to trust the Catalyst and/ or not pick the refusal option.

1) You know that the Crucible hasn't activated since Hackett tells you so. "It must be something on your end". Therefore you know that in order to activate it you have to do something. Since you don't know how to activate it you should listen to what the Catalyst has to say at least.

2) The Catalyst brought you up to its chamber when it could have let you bleed to death. Then it offers you the chance to kill it. You may say "but how does Shepard know any of the options are legit?". Well why would the Catalyst offer you three different choices each with their own unique way of being carried out? If he wanted you to kill yourself through trickery while still offering you the illusion of choice then he would have made all the means to activate the three different options the same. Why not just make it so activating any of the three options available require Shepard to jump into a beam? Shooting a tube doesn't exactly scream 'suicide' or 'surrender' does it?

3) Most importantly. There is no chance of winning against the Reapers. This next section is from a message I've previously posted in another thread. The main political/ military powers of this cycle have been lost. Thessia has been taken, Earth has been taken, Palaven is about to be taken (remember that means both the Krogan and Turians couldn't even take back one planet), the Citadel has been taken (that means all the relays are now under Reaper control) and the Batarians were destroyed. This all confirms what Shepard's superiors have been saying about victory not being possible. And there's still at least 10's of thousands of Reapers left to kill who are on a winning streak that reads something like 20,000 to 0. Chances of victory = 0. I've seen the threads that support the idea of conventional victory but the point Bioware were trying to make is that it is impossible.

If someone is holding a gun to your head and says "if you do what I say then you can live" then you're going to do what they say because it gives you the possibility of living as opposed to certain death. A chance is better than none.



This topic has been brought up numerous times why not post in those threads instead? All the information you need to make sense of the endings is either in the game or exists on these forums in the discussions that have been going on for months now. 
 

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

Refuse, ironically, becomes the only artistic ending by making you lose for taking a moral stand. It makes you realize that standing for your convictions does not automatically result in victory. It is the only ending that isn't rainbows and sunshine (which the 3 other endings have become). It is the only ending that is actually a bittersweet ending.

It is also, of course, the result of a utilitarian calculus the same as the other endings that also requires either a "leap of faith" as OP put it or metagaming to perceive the conclusion. In refuse, the entire current cycle is sacrificed for the greater good. In destroy, all synthetic life is sacrificed for the greater good. In control, Shepard is sacrificed for the greater good. In synthesis, all life's current state of being is sacrificed for the greater good.

There is no greater morality to refusal than there is any other choice, only what you put into it.

At the time you make the choice, there is no guarantee Liara's beacons will survive (only her word, based upon her immense skills as an information broker and archeologist), that the next cycle will discover those beacons if they survive, or will have any way to access or interpret them properly as the "current" cycle was unable to properly interpret the prothean beacons -- without the Thorian you conveniently killed in ME1.

After all, the female Stargazer scene is extremely ambiguous in this respect. One possible interpretation for the scene is that they found and accessed the beacons, but misinterpreted it and think the previous cycle defeated the Reapers. "Their sacrifice they made so we can live without danger" and whatnot.

[Sisterofshane]

Captiosus77 wrote...

Rejection is the second most morally objectionable choice Shepard could make. Why? Because it forces Shepard's morality on the ENTIRE GALAXY and dooms ALL advanced civilizations to death - and metagaming isn't necessary to know widescale death is the end result as it's repeated, by damn near every central character, throughout the game. Only synthesis is more morally reprehensible.

But, whatever. This entire thread is meaningless as TAO will just continue to use Catalyst style flawed logic to justify still being angry.

Ooo, was with you until this paragraph.

[Zine2]

Anyone who thinks Shep is forcing his/her morals on the entire galaxy in the Refusal ending is an idiot who is unable to properly assign blame.

Shep does not have to decide anything for the galaxy. If the galaxy dies, it's not Shep's fault.

The only reason the galaxy is dying is because the Reapers are too retarded to realize that they're exactly that - a bunch of genocidal retards.

Thinking Shepard is suddenly morally culpable for refusing to follow the Reaper's instructions when the choices would not even be necessary if the Reapers weren't off committing acts of mass genocide demonstrates a complete inability to assign moral culpability properly.

[Hudathan]

Voutsis1982 wrote...

Or - and stay with me here - maybe I should contact Hackett and talk to some Crucible engineers, the dudes who actually built the thing, aren't its target and have no reason to lie to you. Because the Catalyst didn't build the thing, is defintely its target and has every reason to lie to you.

Who knows? They might say something like "Oh yeah, we just pump power into the Citadel, it works on the dark energy principles that powers the relays and the reapers, and it burns them out!"

The fact that the Citadel is connected to the Relays isn't new. The engineers knew this but the problem is no one knows enough about the Citadel and the Relays to do much other than use it. Even the Crucible is simply a device that taps into the Citadel and we just  followed some blue prints. It's like having a hundred children following simple directions to make a basic bomb out of everyday household products.

We assumed that connecting the Crucible to the Citadel would do something, and we were so pre-occupied with getting it there successfully that we were stumped when nothing happened. Shepard had to do everything in his/her limited power to figure out if there was something to be done, and taking one of the three options was it.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

Anyone who thinks Shep is forcing his/her morals on the entire galaxy in the Refusal ending is an idiot who is unable to properly assign blame.

Shep does not have to decide anything for the galaxy. If the galaxy dies, it's not Shep's fault.

The only reason the galaxy is dying is because the Reapers are too retarded to realize that they're exactly that - a bunch of genocidal retards.

Thinking Shepard is suddenly morally culpable for refusing to follow the Reaper's instructions when the choices would not even be necessary if the Reapers weren't off committing acts of mass genocide demonstrates a complete inability to assign moral culpability properly.

So the Reapers are bad and are doing bad things and we don't like it. What does that have to do with whether or not we use a weapon that could possibly defeat them if there wasn't anything else left to try anyway?

[Warrior Craess]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

When talking about rejection compared to the other endings, people often bring up how the Reaper threat is still ended one way or another and how selfish people are for rejecting and so on. That's debatable, but not the point here.
One important point that I think is often missed though pointed out many times before by various people - how does Shepard know that?

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word - and that alone - of the creator and controller of the Reapers. Shepard will not even survive to see these options pan out. Definitely so in control and synthesis, and at least a likely possibility in destroy (especially since Shepard tries to commit suicide by explosion).
From Shepard's perspective, all she sees is the head Reaper giving her an ultimatum, the logic of which is flawed. Why would the Reapers hand you the keys to their own destruction? The Catalyst does not adequately explain the reasons for this, other than the current solution no longer being viable for arbitrary reasons.

How is the Catalyst trustworthy? The Reaper's main tactic throughout all 3 games is corruption and deception.
Yes, Sovereign and Harbinger were honest. But they didn't WANT anything from Shepard, they were simply making proclamations as to their intent.
With others they have manipulated, lied and used up through indoctrination and such. Look at the Geth. The Geth were attacked by the Quarians, so the Reapers promised to upgrade and help them. Which they did... they also took total control and made them puppets, illustrating perfectly how the Reapers cannot be trusted.

This represents a fundamental flaw in the ending. Within the narrative Shepard basically can't take any of these options, they require a leap of faith far worse than the one needed to give TIM the Collector Base, for example.
The only way you know the endings are viable is because you already know what they'll do! This is in the EC of course - a first time player with the OE must simply blindly fumble into an ending because you have no other choice.
Now that you HAVE the choice to reject, no other ending makes sense internally. You can philosophise about sacrifice and brave new eras all you want. I'm sure some will immediately react and yell "DON'T SPEAK FOR MY SHEPARD". But I'm sorry, you see the appeal of destroy/control/synthesis because you are meta-gaming. Shepard doesn't see it because Shepard CANNOT see it.

Not sure it comes down to metagaming so much as whether the player (shepard) believes that a conventional military war is winnable.  If they feel it is, then reject is absolutely the answer.  However if they feel it isn't, then any chance, even one that may be false, is better. 

to steal a line from some of my favorite books, if your hanging from a cliff and the only possible handhold is a tuft of grass... are you going to reach for it or not?  Even if you know it won't hold? 

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

There is no greater morality to refusal than there is any other choice, only what you put into it.

You're speaking in terms of "my morality is just as good as yours!". I'm talking about the narrative.

For a moral stand to have meaning, it must come with actual sacrifice. You don't actually get to the "sacrifice" part in Destroy, Control, or Synthesis. They gloss over Geth genocide. Shep becomes a benevolent God in Control. Synthesis is green glowy rainbows and sunshine.

Refuse, and Refuse alone - ironically by refusing a Golden Ending - breaks the old Video game narrative of "taking a moral stand makes you win". You don't win in the Refuse ending. The story of "your" galaxy / cycle ends in defeat.

But that's exactly why it is a deeper and more artistic ending. It forces the player to confront the reality that those who take a moral stand don't always win. They often suffer, die, and lose everything they have.

Indeed, the very ambiguity of the ending - maybe nobody ever sees Liara's recording - actually enhances it rather than takes away from it by ramming home the point that perhaps no one will ever know of the current cycle's sacrifice.

It is easy to take a moral stand when it results in victory. It is easy to take a moral stand when people applaud you for your efforts.

It ain't easy to take a moral stand alone, unmourned, and in the dark - where no one will ever know.

But character is what you are in the dark.

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:54 .

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...

So the Reapers are bad and are doing bad things and we don't like it. What does that have to do with whether or not we use a weapon that could possibly defeat them if there wasn't anything else left to try anyway?

That using the weapon - and therefore possibly compromising our morals in the process to use such a weapon - would never have been necessarily in the first place if the Reapers were not committing massive war crimes.

Therefore, any culpability ultimately rests with the Reapers. It it stupid to argue that the ultimate culpability doesn't lie with the Reapers in any ending.

[Warrior Craess]

Elite Midget wrote...

Well seeing that Shepard dies in Synthesis and Control... There's no way of those Shepards knowing the Reapers kept their word.

umm Shepard (or at least his memories and thoughts) do know in control.  All comes down to what you think a person is... is it the meat and bones  or the thoughts and memories? 

[humes spork]

Zine2 wrote...

I'm talking about the narrative.

No, by attaching a higher order of what you perceive to be "artistry" to refusal, which is a statement of opinion you're divorcing your statements from the actual narrative and actually positing your own position and morality as superior.

Case in point, the fact you either failed to identify or acknowledge that each of the endings remains in the end a utilitarian calculus -- which you yourself unintentionally make by arguing an uncompromising position is one that furthers the summun bonum.

Of course, you're also the same person who in a thread three months ago failed to understand the word "murder" has moral connotations in the first place, even when explicitly spelled out to you multiple times in legal, philosophical and just for the sake of base coverage, religious terms, so I really shouldn't expect you to understand the notion of utility as the basis for ethical arguments. An ironic point, considering your own choice of words in your own argument then yielded the conclusion the Reapers are not culpable for their actions as demonstrated to you, which is something you're now arguing against.

Modifié par humes spork, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:05 .

[Voutsis1982]

The Eruptionist wrote...
1) You know that the Crucible hasn't activated since Hackett tells you so. "It must be something on your end". Therefore you know that in order to activate it you have to do something.

You know that the Citadel arms open after that dialgoue, and the situation changes.

2) The Catalyst brought you up to its chamber when it could have let you bleed to death.

Yep. No more variables changed, no more need to change the solution. No organic has ever stood there.

Or... why let you die when there's a use for you? I did address this in my earlier post you know.

If he wanted you to kill yourself through trickery while still offering you the illusion of choice then he would have made all the means to activate the three different options the same.

What you've done there is explain how it's a great way to trick someone. A person might be suspicious of a single "pwn me" button, but throw a little moral conundrum at them and they forget who they're talking to. And remember, he's not trying to kill you. He's trying to use you.

3) Most importantly. There is no chance of winning against the Reapers.

That's not an argument that you have to do what the Catalyst says. That's certainly not an argument that the Catalyst should have been there at all.

[shurikenmanta]

Eh. Metagaming allowed my Shep to become a god.

So I'm cool with it.

[Hudathan]

 *spoilers* I am reminded of the first episode to the recent BBC Sherlock Holmes series. Anyone who hasn't seen the show, don't read this post and go watch the show instead, it's great. *spoilers*

Sherlock Holmes was helping the police figure out why random people who share no obvious similarities are turning up dead after committing suicide by taking the same form of poison. None of the people were particularly depressed but there were no signs of struggle neither. The police hesitate to call it murder but Holmes knew it was murder.

Eventually, Holmes find out that the killer basically kidnaps people and forces them to play a twisted game. The killer points a gun at the victim and puts down two bottles of identical looking pills in front of them. If the victim doesn't pick one of the bottles, the killer shoots them. If the victim picks one, the killer takes the other and they both swallow their pills at the same time.

The killer makes a point to tell Holmes that no one has refused to play the game, because it would make no sense.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

That using the weapon - and therefore possibly compromising our morals in the process to use such a weapon - would never have been necessarily in the first place if the Reapers were not committing massive war crimes.

Therefore, any culpability ultimately rests with the Reapers. It it stupid to argue that the ultimate culpability doesn't lie with the Reapers in any ending.

Of course it's the fault of the Reapers that we are even forced to make these decisions to begin with but that's not the theme of the discussion here.

[Warrior Craess]

mauro2222 wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

I'm not, I had every reason to believe that I needed to use the Crucible before the fleets are overwhelmed. We know Hammer forces are essentially finished, we know that the fleets orbiting Earth are in deep. Either I use the Crucible and something good happens or we're screwed and should've never went to Earth to begin with. And since it was too late for that, I might as well use the Crucible. How is that meta-gaming.

Again, metagaming. Refuse doesn't imply not using the Crusible, you're refusing to follow StarChild.

Really and what other options are there?  Sorry but we're playing a computer game, not an open-ended Pen and Paper game. To some extent there is always metagaming going on.  First Why believe anything anyone tells you in the game? Do you have some independant method to verify it?  When Aria tells you she'll help, why believe her?  When the Delatross coms you and offers the Salarian fleet if only you sabotage the genophage how can you be sure she's telling the truth? 

So at the end of the game your given 4 options, and are required to choose... The metagaming isn't choosing one way or another, it's in knowing that you only have those 4 choices and that you gotta pick one of them. 

[Zine2]

Hudathan wrote...
Of course it's the fault of the Reapers that we are even forced to make these decisions to begin with but that's not the theme of the discussion here.

Tell that to the people blaming Shep for not "saving" the galaxy and "forcing his morals" by choosing Reject.

Again, those are stupid claims. The galaxy would not need saving if it weren't for the Reapers. And Shep is "forcing" his morals on everyone regardless of the ending - because the Star Child forced that choice on him / her.

Therefore, any attempt to portray the "Refuse" option as the stupid option is really just pointless sour-graping. It was a valid moral choice.

[Zine2]

humes spork wrote...

No, by attaching a higher order of what you perceive to be "artistry" to refusal, which is a statement of opinion you're divorcing your statements from the actual narrative and actually positing your own position and morality as superior.

LOL, humes, you remain completely pointless.

"Zine is saying that the Refuse ending is the best ending, hence it has the superior moral!"

No, you idiot.

The Refuse ending is the best ending because it is the only one where you actually LOSE. And it shows that moral stands do not always emerge victorious.

That's why it's different from every other cookie-cutter video game ending wherein the Developers shout "DEUS EX MACHINA!" and everything reverts to rainbows and sunshine.

The key element - which you cowardly and deliberately omit because of your poor debating ability - is that you LOSE. None of this stupid "my morals are better than yours" babbling because you're too obsessed over utilitarian calculus nonsense.

Also, I find it hilarious that you are still holding grudges from 2 months ago wherein you tried and failed to pretend that "murder" is a moral term, as opposed to a simple statement of fact. Really, what kind of lunatic pretends that what the Reapers do to people isn't murder?

Modifié par Zine2, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:09 .

[Zanallen]

Damn Angry One, let is go. If you continue ranting about this game you are going to work yourself into an early grave. That much anger is bad for the heart.

[Guglio08]

Zine2 wrote...

 It was a valid moral choice.

Sure, but it was also 100% guaranteed to get everyone killed.

The other options had a chance at actually achieving something. Therefore it would be illogical to choose Refuse if the goal is to save the galaxy (and therefore its residents) from the Reapers.

[Hudathan]

Zine2 wrote...

Tell that to the people blaming Shep for not "saving" the galaxy and "forcing his morals" by choosing Reject.

Again, those are stupid claims. The galaxy would not need saving if it weren't for the Reapers. And Shep is "forcing" his morals on everyone regardless of the ending - because the Star Child forced that choice on him / her.

Therefore, any attempt to portray the "Refuse" option as the stupid option is really just pointless sour-graping. It was a valid moral choice.

So the bad guys forced you into a tough position where you might have to do some shady things to save lives, Shepard is still in control of his/her own actions. The fact that you had an opportunity to save lives but didn't take it out of principal isn't going to make anybody clap for you, especially if taking the opportunity wouldn't have been any worse than what was going to happen anyway.

The Refuse option is absolutely a valid moral choice, it can also be a stupid option at the same time within the context of the story. Being moral doesn't mean it can't be stupid at the same time.

[Zine2]

Guglio08 wrote...

The other options had a chance at actually achieving something. Therefore it would be illogical to choose Refuse if the goal is to save the galaxy (and therefore its residents) from the Reapers.

Hitler conquers 99% of the world, and then suddenly tells the Allies "You have impressed me, therefore I will allow you to use this secret weapon I have created which will allow you to undo my overwhelming victory?"

And your answer is "Woohoo! Let's pick it immediately!"

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are unable to seperate metagaming from IC choices.