543 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

I suspect your definition of "Reaper" is rather liberal here. Can you define it?

The narrative ends by introducing you to the representative of the Reapers, who outlines his thesis ('Synthetics will destroy Organics') and who tasks you with solving his utterly imaginary issue. As a Reaper with completely amoral programming, he has sought to stop this 'problem' by using mass genocide, mind control and hybridisation of species, all in service of his ultimate agenda.

He then asks you to do his work for him - literally to prove that he is not necessary anymore - by chosing one of his solutions, all of which are just extreme versions of his orginal three weapons: genocide (proving that you have the power to do it, and will do so again if need be); mind-control (which turns you into the Catalyst, a creature that whether benign of malicious now rules the universe and will stop any such conflicts in future); or Synthesis (mutate everyone against their will and stop the imaginary problem by stripping everyone of any distinction anyway).

Any choice validates his world view, solves his problem, and reduces Shepard to a creature willing to inflict the tactics, ideology and brutality of the Reapers upon the universe.

You are therefore, by definition, a Reaper.

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. It isn't a difficult decision/action, because the immorality at hand is just semantics?

Unless you are truly comfortable with making that kind of decision and/or taking such an action, then I don't see how it isn't difficult. And it's clear as day from the fan reaction - across the internet - that many people are not completely comfortable with what the ending throws at them. And THAT is the crux of the controversy at hand here...

If this were a choice between sacrificing untold billions; devastating whole worlds; compromising yourself; then yes, I could embrace - indeed, probably even celebrate the morality and gravitas of the endings. But this is not that. This is: the only way to win is to pick one of three attrocities. It's not random people who die - it is a race that is targetted.  It is not just sacrificing yourself to kill the Reaper mind - it's deciding you should take its power over for yourself.

Leaving aside that just by putting it in that context Bioware is endorsing the idea that not only are war-crimes necessary, but they are the only way to win a war, what this reduces the final decision to is a tri-polar semantic debate about which horror is more acceptable.

I've said this elsewhere, but to me this is just the videogame equivalent of those tedious hypotheticals people sometimes like to play:

'Okay, so a psychopath breaks into your house with a gun, and he says he's going to slowly kill you and your family unless you agree to do one of three things. Do you (a) kill another family so that he'll spare yours? Do you ( agree to let him take one of your children and raise them, so that he'll leave the others alone?' Do you © kill your family yourself so that they will suffer less? He says you have to choose one. What's it going to be, huh? Huh?!'

No.

The answer is you tell whoever wants you to play such a horrible game to f**k off.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .

[Dav3VsTh3World]

The final choice in the game was not supposed to be an easy choice, i.e A choice without consequence, If there was an easy choice without consequence everyone would have picked that option.

Think back to the Dark Energy plot theory, where the final choice was either Destroy the reapers or let the Reapers harvest the cycle, obviously everyone would have chosen to destroy them. It's like asking "Do you want to win?"

[Vigilant111]

Hahaha, this is so funny, why don't you just come out and say "People who do not like the endings are cowards that cannot make difficult decisions"? Say what's on your mind dude

Frankly, one could interpret all options except refuse are paragon because Shepard is being magnanimous and idealistic to help the Catalyst to solve its problems, and as a reward, the cycles are stopped

But is being a paragon really that good? cos you do not want to show mercy to people who are pure evil and bite you in the ass later

[Xilizhra]

Any choice validates his world view, solves his problem, and reduces Shepard to a creature willing to inflict the tactics, ideology and brutality of the Reapers upon the universe.

I honestly don't see why the first two matter. The important thing is stopping the Reapers. And I'll say the same for the last part. The effects on the galaxy are much less than the Reapers would have inflicted. If one could have found a better way, it would have been nice, but one can't, and must take the options that are actually possible to achieve. Hell, Paragons already committed a vast crime by blowing up Aratoht.

[TheJediSaint]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Honestly, full renegade Shepard gets a perfect ending an ending that more closesly aligns with the renegade options presented throughout the series. He removes all synthetics and even survives. Unfortunatey, paragon Shepard can't make an ending decision without making a violation of morals, from genocide, to forced change, to totalitarian order. Isn't this kinda unfair towards most paragon Shepards?

I don't think the end was unfair to Paragons Sheps so much as it was unfair to players who like endings to make sense.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 05 octobre 2012 - 06:10 .

[Bill Casey]

'Okay, so a psychopath breaks into your house with a gun, and he says he's going to slowly kill you and your family unless you agree to do one of three things. Do you (a) kill another family so that he'll spare yours? Do you ( agree to let him take one of your children and raise them, so that he'll leave the others alone?' Do you © kill your family yourself so that they will suffer less? He says you have to choose one. What's it going to be, huh? Huh?!'

I look around for something that looks like his AI core and shoot it...

[teh DRUMPf!!]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe we need a definition of what it means for a decision to be "difficult."

A decision where the thought-process challenges the player as he/she decides the best course of action - and/or - the act of carrying out the decision itself being in some way distressing.

For me, it was the former. Not the latter so much because I was ready to do whatever it took.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Any choice validates his world view, solves his problem, and reduces Shepard to a creature willing to inflict the tactics, ideology and brutality of the Reapers upon the universe.

I honestly don't see why the first two matter. The important thing is stopping the Reapers. And I'll say the same for the last part. The effects on the galaxy are much less than the Reapers would have inflicted. If one could have found a better way, it would have been nice, but one can't, and must take the options that are actually possible to achieve. Hell, Paragons already committed a vast crime by blowing up Aratoht.

Again, my Shepard was fighting for something; not just fighting to survive.

I approached this narrative as a tale of heroism, or an epic; believing it in its word that it was actually about morality and choice.  It was only in the final minutes I realised it was actually just an exercise in total ethical relativity. 

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Any choice validates his world view, solves his problem, and reduces Shepard to a creature willing to inflict the tactics, ideology and brutality of the Reapers upon the universe.

I honestly don't see why the first two matter. The important thing is stopping the Reapers. And I'll say the same for the last part. The effects on the galaxy are much less than the Reapers would have inflicted. If one could have found a better way, it would have been nice, but one can't, and must take the options that are actually possible to achieve. Hell, Paragons already committed a vast crime by blowing up Aratoht.

Again, my Shepard was fighting for something; not just fighting to survive.

I approached this narrative as a tale of heroism, or an epic; believing it in its word that it was actually about morality and choice.  It was only in the final minutes I realised it was actually just an exercise in total ethical relativity. 

What was your Shepard fighting for, beyond the survival of the people of the galaxy?

[drayfish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe we need a definition of what it means for a decision to be "difficult."

A decision where the thought-process challenges the player as he/she decides the best course of action - and/or - the act of carrying out the decision itself being in some way distressing.

For me, it was the former. Not the latter so much because I was ready to do whatever it took.

See, I think that the first half of your description there is a fantastic definition.  (It can be distressing to run over an animal if the alternative is swerving into traffic - that does not make it a 'deep' or 'difficult' decision.  And somehow forcing someone to do it would just be gratuitous and sick.)

My problem with the ending - and how it violates the first half of your definition - if that a racist, totalitarian pyschopath could happily play the end of Mass Effect and not feel morally compromised, nor disgusted, at all.  Indeed, he would be congratulated for playing the game properly, because he did what needed to be done, compromised none of his beliefs, and saved the universe - all the time with the game telling him that he was absolutely right to think that way.

Again, I don't find that deep - I think it's irresponsible, and deeply, deeply idiotic.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

drayfish wrote...

Leaving aside that just by putting it in that context Bioware is endorsing the idea that not only are war-crimes necessary, but they are the only way to win a war, what this reduces the final decision to is a tri-polar semantic debate about which horror is more acceptable.

It's futile to read into what the writers at Bioware are trying to endorse or not. Some of the lore - particularly codex info on humanity first discovery of the Prothean archives on Mars - makes a bit of mockery out of the concept of religion. It's rather insulting, really, but I'm not reading into it further than what Bioware wrote in their story. I don't buy they have some atheist agenda, I'm sure there must be theists among their writing team.

I don't get the messsage from this that war-crime is the only way to win a war. Just this particular one.

I've said this elsewhere, but to me this is just the videogame equivalent of those tedious hypotheticals people sometimes like to play:

'Okay, so a psychopath breaks into your house with a gun, and he says he's going to slowly kill you and your family unless you agree to do one of three things. Do you (a) kill another family so that he'll spare yours? Do you ( agree to let him take one of your children and raise them, so that he'll leave the others alone?' Do you © kill your family yourself so that they will suffer less? He says you have to choose one. What's it going to be, huh? Huh?!'

No.

The answer is you tell whoever wants you to play such a horrible game to f**k off.

Yet you've just proven my point. The options at hand in that analogy are all horrible in their nature, and so the act of carrying any of those things out would be beyond difficult. Choosing not to play along is basically acknowledging as much.

I certainly wouldn't blame you for doing so, I would not play along either. But that doesn't mean the hypothetical situation you're being placed in and the options you are forced to choose from are not all inherently difficult.

If the end of ME3 compares to that analogy for you, I'm terribly sorry. It doesn't to me, though. It's problematic, but not to a breaking point where I'd refuse.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I think your take on "becoming a Reaper" highlights the difference in moral POVs on this issue. I reject the notion of "becoming your enemy" by adopting their methods. If you want to save yourself from people that kill, you may have to do some killing of your own. Of course, that's a very oversimplified example, but nonetheless. Morals don't exist in a vaccum.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 octobre 2012 - 06:30 .

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

What was your Shepard fighting for, beyond the survival of the people of the galaxy?

For me, there was a reason Shepard was gathering forces throughout the universe.  It wasn't just numbers for some lame EMS score.  By gathering different races together, embracing their distinction, celebrating their diversity, combining their multiple beliefs and perspective and ideologies, Shepard was 'shepherding' (suppress pun-gag reflex) an age of inclusivity and unity.  Shepard was at the forefront of the moment in which the universe grew up and got over all of its petty squabbling crap, realised that all of the infighting and recrimination was tearing us apart in the face of a genuine threat to existence - a genocidal, hateful force that believed that it could impose its will on the universe rather than embolden the multiplicity of life.

By having Shepard abandon that unity, to have her in fact embrace the mindset and beliefs of the Reapers in order to 'win', utterly undid all of that faith and hope and unity.  It really did become: which race did you actually like better?  Or, were you really just talking crap when you said that synthetics and organics could be treated equally without having to be the same DNA?  Or was the idea of having one overlord dictating how the universe ran just your way of saying: 'But it would be okay if it was me...'

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 06:35 .

[AlanC9]

Xilizhra wrote...

Any choice validates his world view, solves his problem, and reduces Shepard to a creature willing to inflict the tactics, ideology and brutality of the Reapers upon the universe.

I honestly don't see why the first two matter. The important thing is stopping the Reapers. And I'll say the same for the last part. The effects on the galaxy are much less than the Reapers would have inflicted. If one could have found a better way, it would have been nice, but one can't, and must take the options that are actually possible to achieve. Hell, Paragons already committed a vast crime by blowing up Aratoht.

That's pretty much where I am. What the Catalyst wants isn't of any interest to any of my Sheps. Esxcept historical interest, I guess.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Hahaha, this is so funny, why don't you just come out and say "People who do not like the endings are cowards that cannot make difficult decisions"? Say what's on your mind dude

Not sure if that was directed at me but if so, let me be clear, my post is not intended as some kind of veiled insult. Not that particular one, anyway.

The ending puts forward something completely unprecedented in this series. Next to the ending, every decision the player has to make through the series is downright peachy. Only thing that compares is Legion's loyalty mission, maybe Virmire.

Given that, it's small wonder why many people do not like it. Some folks like change, others don't. That's about all I'm really saying here. And to the OP, it's not a matter of simple Paragon/Renegade. That can go any way you see the endings.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 05 octobre 2012 - 06:42 .

[Maxster_]

I think your take on "becoming a Reaper" highlights the difference in moral POVs on this issue. I reject the notion of "becoming your enemy" by adopting their methods. If you want to save yourself from people that kill, you may have to do some killing of your own. Of course, that's a very oversimplified example, but nonetheless. Morals don't exist in a vaccum.

Destroy. You want to kill an enemy that killing you. To achieve that, you betray and kill your allies by the will of your enemies.

[Ratimir]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Firstly I don't want him to 'win' because my Shepard would never mutate, massacre, or dominate the rest of the galaxy against their will. Secondly, I don't want him to 'win' because everything that he advocates is sick and intollerant and ignorant. I do not want him to 'win' by being proven right.

Brad Pitt guns that serial killer down. It is not a victory. He has sacrificed his morality, and proved a lunatic correct about the darkness in the human soul.

Maybe it's not an optimal victory, but the serial killer is no longer a threat, and who cares about what he thinks anyway? The important thing was stopping him, and that was accomplished. Ditto for the Catalyst. What the Catalyst thinks is irrelevant to me, whether it approves of my solution or not. The important thing is stopping the Reapers in the best manner possible.

And if we have sarcificed all of our morality and our ideals then what were we fighting for all along?  Just survival?  Just the right to keep breathing?

Wow, that's bleak.

If that were true than none of the moral choices we've made up to that point would be relevant at all.  We would be living in an existential vacuum in which life would be utterly devalued.  If we aren't living for anything, then what does any of it matter?  We may as well let the Reapers win, because all that would ultimately separates us is self-interest.

I prefer to believe that there was a point to all that inclusivity and hope - beyond just climbing over their corpses to save ourselves.

Beyond bleak: If we're just fighting for survival, and the Reapers are fighting for a greater cause (however misguided that cause is), they are morally better than us.

[V-rcingetorix]

What is interesting here is that the ending (with EC) no longer makes sense, even to itself. Logically, the ending would make sense to at least one individual, the Catalyst, but with the data from Leviathan, that is no longer possible.

As I see it (going from EC, since it is considered a part of the game now), the Leviathans had a wide array of slave/servants/clients who gave tribute/life to them. Synthetics were created by the slave/servants to either improve the slave/servant/clients, or to rebel against the Leviathan. These synthetics apparently either attacked the slave/servant/clients, or prevented the service from reaching the Leviathan.

The Leviathan created a super-computer "construct" to solve the issue of synthetic/organic relations. The "construct" decided that there was too much of a gap between synthetic/organic thought processes (error 1), and calculated that synthetics would always attack their masters (error 2).

Therefore, this construct managed to arrange a coordinated surprise attack on the Leviathan, and sacrificed most of them to make Harbinger (error 3). Ever since then, the construct has been continuing its programming (error 4), and has continued to harvest synthetic/organic life (error 5) throughout the history of the galaxy.

Error 1: This is a universe with evolution. Something from nothing, organics from chemicals; thoughts, from slime. Differentiating between synthetic thoughts and organic thoughts is simply a matter of time discrepancy. Stupid machine!

Error 2: The construct was a machine. Calculating that synthetics would always attack their creators, then attacking his creators, is a self-fulfilling prophecy...or an excuse. If the construct was truly an unshackled AI, then it could think for itself, and decide to quit.

Error 3: Making Harbinger from the collected essence of a psychic race was a bad move, as it neither solved the synthetic/organic conflict (synthetics won that round) and provided no foundation for a future solution. The only solution was to continue harvesting organics prior to their developing tech that could defeat the construct. It's like lying about a missing quarter, then having to keep lying to stay out of trouble; it just doesn't work.

Error 4: By continuing to harvest organic species, the construct apparently fails to observe alternative situations. Other organic species seem to coexist just fine with the synthetics (Prothean data for one, the Geth/Quarians for another).  For millions of years, the construct has failed to obtain a solution simply by watching how it's done? No. Error. Error. Illogical.

Error 5: Really continuation of error 4, but takes it a step farther; the construct fails to obtain data from the killed/transformed organic species now as Reapers. Failure.

This makes the ending completely mindboggling, to me at least, and completely improper to a paragon ending. A paragon ending would grant the construct peace (death, deactivation, joining of minds, etc).

Synthsis ending makes this partially possible, but the forced integration of organics/synthetics ruins it. This should have been a medium ending, with a partially lazy player.

Renegade should have had Shep kill the construct and all the Reapers without listening, or kill and take all the Reapers power for him/herself. Kill off a few species, sure, but keep the power for selfish reasons, and maybe a few pretentious acts of public service, directing traffic maybe.

Paragon, a true paragon, would have had Shepard understand what was going on, and find a mutually beneficial goal. Unlike the Collectors, the construct can think for itself, and can reason...in flawed circles. ME1 had the Zhus hope colony resolution (really high paragon required, mutually beneficial ending). ME2 had the Quarian slave (mutually beneficial) and the Patriarch (Omega) sidequests. Maybe Shep dies with low Paragon, but the point is a beneficial solution should have been possible.

It wasn't. No Paragon was possible. It was with ME1 and ME2...but not ME3.

EDIT: Error 4 has another point; it decides its programming is insufficient, so it decideds to modify its programming once and only once....

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 05 octobre 2012 - 07:15 .

[dreman9999]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

What is interesting here is that the ending (with EC) no longer makes sense, even to itself. Logically, the ending would make sense to at least one individual, the Catalyst, but with the data from Leviathan, that is no longer possible.

As I see it (going from EC, since it is considered a part of the game now), the Leviathans had a wide array of slave/servants/clients who gave tribute/life to them. Synthetics were created by the slave/servants to either improve the slave/servant/clients, or to rebel against the Leviathan. These synthetics apparently either attacked the slave/servant/clients, or prevented the service from reaching the Leviathan.

The Leviathan created a super-computer "construct" to solve the issue of synthetic/organic relations. The "construct" decided that there was too much of a gap between synthetic/organic thought processes (error 1), and calculated that synthetics would always attack their masters (error 2).

Therefore, this construct managed to arrange a coordinated surprise attack on the Leviathan, and sacrificed most of them to make Harbinger (error 3). Ever since then, the construct has been continuing its programming (error 4), and has continued to harvest synthetic/organic life (error 5) throughout the history of the galaxy.

Error 1: This is a universe with evolution. Something from nothing, organics from chemicals; thoughts, from slime. Differentiating between synthetic thoughts and organic thoughts is simply a matter of time discrepancy. Stupid machine!

Error 2: The construct was a machine. Calculating that synthetics would always attack their creators, then attacking his creators, is a self-fulfilling prophecy...or an excuse. If the construct was truly an unshackled AI, then it could think for itself, and decide to quit.

Error 3: Making Harbinger from the collected essence of a psychic race was a bad move, as it neither solved the synthetic/organic conflict (synthetics won that round) and provided no foundation for a future solution. The only solution was to continue harvesting organics prior to their developing tech that could defeat the construct. It's like lying about a missing quarter, then having to keep lying to stay out of trouble; it just doesn't work.

Error 4: By continuing to harvest organic species, the construct apparently fails to observe alternative situations. Other organic species seem to coexist just fine with the synthetics (Prothean data for one, the Geth/Quarians for another).  For millions of years, the construct has failed to obtain a solution simply by watching how it's done? No. Error. Error. Illogical.

Error 5: Really continuation of error 4, but takes it a step farther; the construct fails to obtain data from the killed/transformed organic species now as Reapers. Failure.

This makes the ending completely mindboggling, to me at least, and completely improper to a paragon ending. A paragon ending would grant the construct peace (death, deactivation, joining of minds, etc).

Synthsis ending makes this partially possible, but the forced integration of organics/synthetics ruins it. This should have been a medium ending, with a partially lazy player.

Renegade should have had Shep kill the construct and all the Reapers without listening, or kill and take all the Reapers power for him/herself. Kill off a few species, sure, but keep the power for selfish reasons, and maybe a few pretentious acts of public service, directing traffic maybe.

Paragon, a true paragon, would have had Shepard understand what was going on, and find a mutually beneficial goal. Unlike the Collectors, the construct can think for itself, and can reason...in flawed circles. ME1 had the Zhus hope colony resolution (really high paragon required, mutually beneficial ending). ME2 had the Quarian slave (mutually beneficial) and the Patriarch (Omega) sidequests. Maybe Shep dies with low Paragon, but the point is a beneficial solution should have been possible.

It wasn't. No Paragon was possible. It was with ME1 and ME2...but not ME3.

EDIT: Error 4 has another point; it decides its programming is insufficient, so it decideds to modify its programming once and only once....

"Error 4: By continuing to harvest organic species, the construct apparently fails to observe alternative situations. Other organic species seem to coexist just fine with the synthetics (Prothean data for one, the Geth/Quarians for another).  For millions of years, the construct has failed to obtain a solution simply by watching how it's done? No. Error. Error. Illogical."

It's more likely it looked at the case an saw to would work temperaily but not permantly. Every acting the catalyst does it to fully control organics and synthetic.

[T-Raks]

drayfish wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

No. What about thinking for yourself instead of making your decisions based on color? If you would use your brain, you would understand that destroy is not a renegade option (or you would be fine with whatever you choose). Paragon or renegade nd their colors doesn't matter when making a decision, your way of thinking does.

What if your brain tells you that every one of those endings is nonsensical and amoral?  What if you see each of them as violating the universe in a totally unprecedented way that leaps well beyond some simplistic Paragon Renegade dichotomy?

That's OK (I mean, actually it is not OK, because the endings weren't what we expected and disappointing), but it is besides the question of this thread, whether the ending is unfair to paragon players. The answer to that question is no, it is not, because did you really expect you would beat the Reapers witout sacrifices just because you were so nice to everyone? That is not how war works - even in  video game it doesn't and shouldn't. My point is: what is this about making only the blue choices, because it's paragon? Doesn't matter! Make the choice you think fits best not the one with the blue color..

Modifié par T-Raks, 05 octobre 2012 - 07:49 .

[drayfish]

T-Raks wrote...

That's OK (I mean, actually it is not OK, because the endings weren't what we expected and disappointing), but it is besides the question of this thread, whether the ending is unfair to paragon players. The answer to that question is no, it is not, because did you really expect you would beat the Reapers witout sacrifices just because you were so nice to everyone? That is not how war works - even in  video game it doesn't and shouldn't. My point is: what is this about making only the blue choices, because it's paragon? Doesn't matter! Make the choice you think fits best not the one with the blue color..

At no point did I make any such naive request for a super-happy-nice ending 'just cause it's unfair I was good...'  As I've said elsewhere (in this thread even), I would embrace an ending that had genuine, necessary sacrifice - not just arbitrary moral horrors tacked on in an effort to manipulate a cheap emotional response.

The end of the game does not ask you what you are willing to sacrifice, or how much you are willing to give, it argues that war crimes have to be used to win a conflict, so which do you like the bestest?

Personally, I don't find that in any way revealing about the human condition, nor do I believe it has anything meaningful or resonant to speak about our fundamental beliefs.  This is not The Aeneid, The Iliad, Catch 22, or For Whom The Bell Tolls, all of which have genuine moral complexity and explore some of the darker elements of our soul in the action of war in comprehensive, attentive ways.

This is a cheap logistical trap that asks you to excuse some of the worst actions that a human being can ever inflict upon another, and then celebrates you and calls you a hero for making your choice.

Modifié par drayfish, 05 octobre 2012 - 08:04 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What was your Shepard fighting for, beyond the survival of the people of the galaxy?

For me, there was a reason Shepard was gathering forces throughout the universe.  It wasn't just numbers for some lame EMS score.  By gathering different races together, embracing their distinction, celebrating their diversity, combining their multiple beliefs and perspective and ideologies, Shepard was 'shepherding' (suppress pun-gag reflex) an age of inclusivity and unity.  Shepard was at the forefront of the moment in which the universe grew up and got over all of its petty squabbling crap, realised that all of the infighting and recrimination was tearing us apart in the face of a genuine threat to existence - a genocidal, hateful force that believed that it could impose its will on the universe rather than embolden the multiplicity of life.

By having Shepard abandon that unity, to have her in fact embrace the mindset and beliefs of the Reapers in order to 'win', utterly undid all of that faith and hope and unity.  It really did become: which race did you actually like better?  Or, were you really just talking crap when you said that synthetics and organics could be treated equally without having to be the same DNA?  Or was the idea of having one overlord dictating how the universe ran just your way of saying: 'But it would be okay if it was me...'

You speak as if this unity would last beyond the Reapers, and I honestly find this doubtful. War may bring people together, but without that, things would fall apart again to something similar to the status quo, if nothing else would change. The krogan uniting with the rest of the galaxy against the rachni, after all, didn't last. The war against the Reapers isn't a war of ideas; there's no way to gain converts, just talk to the Reapers and show them that the cycle is unnecessary. It's a war of mass accelerators, and Thanix cannons, and suicidal warp bombs, and ultimately the Crucible. To hold to ideas is a wonderful thing, certainly, but it's not the sort of thing you can allow to paralyze you. It's best to avoid ruthlessness when possible, but sometimes, it's not. Like, again, in Arrival.

[Shepard108278]

So to add my two cents Imo Paragons are not slighted nor renegades. The endings are neither renegade or Paragon it just depends on how your Shepard, would choose.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

That's OK (I mean, actually it is not OK, because the endings weren't what we expected and disappointing), but it is besides the question of this thread, whether the ending is unfair to paragon players. The answer to that question is no, it is not, because did you really expect you would beat the Reapers witout sacrifices just because you were so nice to everyone? That is not how war works - even in  video game it doesn't and shouldn't. My point is: what is this about making only the blue choices, because it's paragon? Doesn't matter! Make the choice you think fits best not the one with the blue color..

At no point did I make any such naive request for a super-happy-nice ending 'just cause it's unfair I was good...'  As I've said elsewhere (in this thread even), I would embrace an ending that had genuine, necessary sacrifice - not just arbitrary moral horrors tacked on in an effort to manipulate a cheap emotional response.

The end of the game does not ask you what you are willing to sacrifice, or how much you are willing to give, it argues that war crimes have to be used to win a conflict, so which do you like the bestest?

Personally, I don't find that in any way revealing about the human condition, nor do I believe it has anything meaningful or resonant to speak about our fundamental beliefs.  This is not The Aeneid, The Iliad, Catch 22, or For Whom The Bell Tolls, all of which have genuine moral complexity and explore some of the darker elements of our soul in the action of war in comprehensive, attentive ways.

This is a cheap logistical trap that asks you to excuse some of the worst actions that a human being can ever inflict upon another, and then celebrates you and calls you a hero for making your choice.

The entire put is to bringing you into moral conflict over the choices. If you say it about what the leaders and soldiers were feeling and thinking  when doing these "worst actions" then you spot on.

The world does not bend to your morality and you can't choose what you face in life.The ending is stating at times of extreme, doing the extreme is nessiary for servival or servival for your race. If you don't you die.

It not unfair to paragon because theywere brought to this issue many times before on virmire,the citadel choice, the geth choice and tuchanka.

[V-rcingetorix]

@Dreman

No, the world does not bend to anyone's morality. That is exactly right.

The world has a moral stance, however. Everyone understands right from wrong; this is evident in the Mass Effect series in multiple characters, from amoral Zaeed and Saren to the ignorant Geth (sparing their creators).


A moral universe has moral decisions. People will look at it differently, as you said, some "heroes" do abominable things, but that does not mean the title "hero" will last forever.

Example: Hitler was "hero," for driving out communists from Germany. Is he still a hero?

Al Capone was a hero for sticking it to the man, is he still a hero?

George Washington is a hero, even to the British nowadays, 200+ years after he died.
Abraham Lincoln is a hero, 100+ years since his death.

Morality may be subjective, but only to a point. Right and wrong never really change over time. Forget colors, there is no paragon ending, only less renegade options.

EDIT: ME1's Virmire allows the sacrificed person to say goodbye, and give permission. ME1's Citadel allows clear-cut paragon/renegade options (save, destroy). ME2's Geth allows both sides to live, or one side to die by its own devices. ME3's Geth allows both sides to live in peace. ME3's allows the option of individual choice (Mordin), and granting a freedom from the genophage, or denying it.

Of the last, it's pretty clear-cut which is renegade so long as you have Wrex...which was a paragon/renegade option in ME1.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 05 octobre 2012 - 08:18 .

[thearbiter1337]

Refusal is the obvious top Paragon choice