BansheeOwnage wrote...
Arashi08 wrote...
BansheeOwnage wrote...
Arashi08 wrote...
Way-way-way-way-wait! Are people seriously acting this way about a decision made in a VIDEO GAME? Really? I mean they actually treated someone like a pariah in an MP game just because he believed in IT!? and all this talk about how "bad" and "immoral" people who picked destroy are, even though in actual reality NOBODY was killed?
...
Do I need to bring out my riddle again?
It's the larger principle that matters. Being a video game is irrelevant. It's unnerving that these people would pick these decisions in real life. I don't want to be "Synthesized".
I see what you mean, but I think the fact that it is a video game is at least partially relevant. The decisions we make in video games are not necessarily the decisions we make in real life. It is like that whole Jack Thompson argument that violent video games make people violent. yet one third of the US population isn't shooting up malls or ramming people on sidewalks with their cars. (I use the US as an example since I can only speak for my country of origin.)
It is easier to make decisions like the ones made in ME3 because there are no actual real-world consequences. They can justify it all they want with whatever logic and philosophy they choose to utilize. but I bet if the people who played the game had to somehow make a similar choice in real life, I bet a significantly lower amount of people would make the same choice, or at the very least it would be 100 times harder to make such a decision.
That's my thought on it at any rate.
I get your point, and I agree that video games don't cause violence, but I guess what I mean is when they argue something so pationately, it's worrying. People probably don't commit violence because of video games because the enemies are bad, or because they know it isn't serious. But synthesis is morally horrible, and that's where this is coming from.
Ya, I can see how it can be worrying, and I agree, as it does seem to mirror alot of other opinions that have had real-world consequences, and it seems just as narrow-minded as those too. I made a rather long post yesterday about why I think Synthesis is horrible too so I'm not going to repeat it here, but at the same time I also try to see things from their perspective as well, which is something that alot of people fail to do.
I won't deny that when I look at some of these posts I immediately wonder how in the world anyone could think that way, but I have to step back and remember that they don't think like me, and I try to see why they look at it from this perspective, and I think I've developed a theory so far:
I think the desore to pick Synthesis, and maybe even Control for that matter, stems from a kind of Messiah complex, coupled with the desire to not have to kill your friends. I think when people play these games, they want to be the hero, and for some, sacrificing "E-E-E-EDI and the Geth," (I'm sorry i couldn't resist the reference, everytime I string EDI and the Geth together like that it makes me think of the song for some reason lol

) doesn't seem like the heroic thing to do. After all we are pretty much socially trained to associate death with badness, especially since death is one of humanity's greatest fears (and desires.) I have a friend who picked control because he didn't want to kill synthetics because he was friends with Legion and EDI, and he didn't want to betray his friends. As we debated it via email for a few days he basically admitted that ultimately that was his definitive reason for choosing synthesis at first and then control. In the end he wanted to do what he thought was right, not because synthesis and control were necessarily the most logical choice for him, but because it meant he could sacrifice of himself rather than sacrificing others, especially his friends.
But as far as I'm concerned, if the endings are literal, all of them require sacrifice, and not just of Shepard.
Naturally I don't see it that way, I think it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees (though preferrably I'd rather live on my feet than lie on my knees.) I think it is more abhorrent to impose your will upon others than to kill another. Not that I condone killing, but there are things far worse than death. Im my belief system there is only one true "sin" and that is to willingly become an obstacle or controlling force that knowingly prevents others frim fulfilling their soul's purpose. Bending someone to your will in such a way is a far worse crime imo, because you;ve taken it upon yourself to attempt to see yourself as a superior being who has the right to impose their moral views on others. It is much like Smiling Mountain says:
"Suddenly YOU are the oppressor, when all you wanted to do was set things right."
Of course, chooseing Destroy, especially from an IT standpoint is kind of similar in it's approach. ITers want to solve the puzzle, to find the hidden meaning that no one else sees. to have their views vindicated. Still, I think alot more critical thinking goes on here than in some of these other threads. And as long as it is done civily we can have a friendly debate about our evidence and whether it actually holds up.
Of course, This is all just my opinion, and long story short, I agree with you. I just try to look at things from an objective standpoint if I can, which is clearly NOT what alot of people are doing when they get so up in arms over this to the point where ITers become pariahs and heathens or something.