543 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Also, I would put some chronological specificity on that descriptor. Could a good person make one of those choices? I suppose. Would she still qualify as a good person after? I would argue no.

Why? One of those things is necessary for stopping the Reapers. Why is it more moral to just let them continue their rampage and kill everyone?

[Quething]

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage, and "more/less" moral doesn't resolve into a binary "good/evil." A thing can be less evil than another thing without in any way compromising its own evil nature. Assault and battery are less evil than murder. Unlawful imprisonment is less evil than torture. Sexual harassment is less evil than rape. "Less" does not mean "not."

[Xilizhra]

Quething wrote...

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage, and "more/less" moral doesn't resolve into a binary "good/evil." A thing can be less evil than another thing without in any way compromising its own evil nature. Assault and battery are less evil than murder. Unlawful imprisonment is less evil than torture. Sexual harassment is less evil than rape. "Less" does not mean "not."

Perhaps so, but if the only action a good person can undertake is an evil one, if the good person takes it after failing to find a good solution beforehand, that does not make the good person stop being good. Goodness is about finding the best option given the circumstances, not hewing to only one set of actions that one can take even if a situation means that nothing actually good can be done.

[V-rcingetorix]

^
Dorian Grey seems fitting...

[Aeokyn]

Every shepard has a different set of morals and ethics.
I understand the concept of people considering the endings morally wrong, but if you
go the game's paragon route, shepard is not ruling the universe, argubly he could,
very easily, that is based on your imagination. A paragon shepard to avoid the "totalarian rule" would use
control to ensure the safety of others through a "greater good" realization. We consider the reapers the enemies,
therefore "controlling them" is not  unheard of.

To say the catalyst is evil seems way too close minded. It is a sentient AI that is following the order to
create a solution. Their solution was not concieved of by the leviathan and from the catalyst standpoint is not morally wrong. It was tasked with saving organics from imminent destruction. It had tried other possibilities, and until shepard reaches the citadel, the reapers were the only solution that even remotely worked, even if only temporary.

Synthesis is believed to be the end of evolution, the apex of existence, if you want to take a consensus from everyone before you make this choice, have fun arguing for the rest of your life, but in such a situation, death or combine your dna to reach the final stage of evolution.

Destroy, simple choice really, destroying what you believe to be your enemy or just eliminating a power that is too much of a threat (in one's opinion) to exist.

Control, personally oversee the galaxy to protect from whatever dangers may come, maybe you don't trust the krogan, maybe you don't think anyone is safe, so you need the ultimate strength to defend them. To not control would be to doom them to possible consquences you had not conceived of.

And finally refuse, everyone dies, despite all you've done, it has been recorded in history that you failed. You lost the self proclaimed war, everyone you knew and loved, all sentient life, ended, gone. for what reason morally, to give people free choice? Simply by being on the citadel, you are speaking on behalf of humanity and making the decision for them, no matter what. You didn't ask, this is where you are, now what do you choose?

"When faced with extinction every alternative is preferable."

[SpamBot2000]

Xilizhra wrote...

Quething wrote...

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage, and "more/less" moral doesn't resolve into a binary "good/evil." A thing can be less evil than another thing without in any way compromising its own evil nature. Assault and battery are less evil than murder. Unlawful imprisonment is less evil than torture. Sexual harassment is less evil than rape. "Less" does not mean "not."

Perhaps so, but if the only action a good person can undertake is an evil one, if the good person takes it after failing to find a good solution beforehand, that does not make the good person stop being good. Goodness is about finding the best option given the circumstances, not hewing to only one set of actions that one can take even if a situation means that nothing actually good can be done.

Again, that is what BioWare are forcing us to do. Pick A, B or C or it's Game Really Very Over. They did not really bother with making the choice make any narrative sense at all. The amount of contempt oozing all around that ending... it's like even they don't like it. But The Story Must End Now, With Shepard Dead.  

[SaidRael]

I believe that the ultimate decision is not based on Paragon or Renegade. Bioware would have to remove the colors...

[Estelindis]

Getorex wrote...

 If you are at war with X and you get together to discuss terms for ending the war and X sets ALL the terms and conditions and you set none. You lost.  Simple as that. The kid is completely and fully capable of stopping the Reapers, but wont. You have no say so it is all on his terms. That makes you the LOSER.

Consider: this kid thing obviously has control over the Reapers.  The little tike could make them do whatever he wants.  He is offering to let YOU choose an action on HIS terms, provided you kill yourself in all cases.  If you tell the tike you want to control the Reapers and send them on their way...there is no reason the tike couldn't do that.  The result is the same whether the tike does it or Shepard does it, except the tike takes his pound of flesh and sees you dead in making doing so.  OR the tike could accept your wish and do it himself without anyone dying to do so.  Exact same effect either way but the kid demands a pointless victor-determined human sacrifice to do it.  

This was extremely well said.

tvman099 wrote...
Considering yourself qualified enough to make a judgment that results in a total alteration to the fundamental existence of all living things in the galaxy without caring whether or not they desire that kind of change, on the basis that you think it will be "better for everyone" is megalomaniacal, not paragon.

So was this.

There are so many problems with the Catalyst that it's hard to know where to begin, but you've both done good jobs of summarising some of the more serious ones.

Anyway, on the whole I would agree with the premise of the topic.  Destroy seems more renegade to me than synthesis seems paragon.  The problem with control, whether paragon or renegade, is ultimately the same: why would one believe oneself capable of controlling the Reapers when anyone else who thought they could do it failed?  Then again, credibility of the Catalyst is really a problem for all endings.  "Okay, so you'll fix things via one of three methods, but only if I let you kill me.  And you created the Reapers I've been fighting to defeat.  I believe you why...?"

Modifié par Estelindis, 06 octobre 2012 - 05:04 .

[AlanC9]

Quething wrote...

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage"

Except Refusers. OK, Liara saves the later cycle, but if Shepard derps he's letting the Reapers kill his cycle.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2012 - 05:09 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

Quething wrote...

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage"

Except Refusers. OK, Liara saves the later cycle, but if Shepard derps he's letting the Reapers kill his cycle.

As I recall, the conversation wheel did not indicate MEEKLY SUBMIT when you picked the "I will not meekly submit" option. 

Now where's The Agreement dude when you need him? Oh, that's right. Working on Halo 4.

[Netsfn1427]

Estelindis wrote...

Getorex wrote...

 If you are at war with X and you get together to discuss terms for ending the war and X sets ALL the terms and conditions and you set none. You lost.  Simple as that. The kid is completely and fully capable of stopping the Reapers, but wont. You have no say so it is all on his terms. That makes you the LOSER.

Consider: this kid thing obviously has control over the Reapers.  The little tike could make them do whatever he wants.  He is offering to let YOU choose an action on HIS terms, provided you kill yourself in all cases.  If you tell the tike you want to control the Reapers and send them on their way...there is no reason the tike couldn't do that.  The result is the same whether the tike does it or Shepard does it, except the tike takes his pound of flesh and sees you dead in making doing so.  OR the tike could accept your wish and do it himself without anyone dying to do so.  Exact same effect either way but the kid demands a pointless victor-determined human sacrifice to do it.

This was extremely well said.

It may be well said but this isn't backed up in the game at all. Star Child is incapable of ending the cycle. It explicitly says that. The Crucible has provided new solutions, but it CAN'T make them happen. It's an A.I.; it's programming has been altered, but not changed completely. It is a slave to it's directive (as the Leviathans say; it does exactly as it was created to do). Therefore it cannot stop the Reapers as it would be going against its directive.

What is described is the Reapers' unconditional surrender.  Before the Crucible is activated; the galaxy has no chance. This is evidenced by Refusal; they lose if the Crucible isn't used. Once the Crucible is docked, Star Child appears and explains what the thing does. That's it. The Crucible functions as designed. Part of its functions is to use the Catalyst for its own ends. All the Catalyst does is explain what the Crucible's options are; the choice before you. It doesn't make the choices. It doesn't even agree with two of the choices. But it's bound by its programming (that the Crucible has now altered) to help you. Despite still having the advantage in which it will successfully carry out its directive for the cycle, the Catalyst stops and allows you to break the cycle. It doesn't have a say in which option you select. That's total unconditional surrender.

The idea that the Catalyst is the one who had these options all along and then just randomly decided to give them to Shepard at the end is not opinion, it's just wrong. It's not backed up by anything in the lore. The Crucible is what creates the choices. The Catalyst is bound by them, unless you refuse to actually use the choices. Then the Catalyst is freed to continue the cycle.

[Estelindis]

Netsfn, the Catalyst letting Shepard carry out a particular option is the same choice as it carrying out that option itself. If it is programmed not to do one, it should be unable to do the other.

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Quething wrote...

False dilemma. No one's letting them continue their rampage"

Except Refusers. OK, Liara saves the later cycle, but if Shepard derps he's letting the Reapers kill his cycle.

As I recall, the conversation wheel did not indicate MEEKLY SUBMIT when you picked the "I will not meekly submit" option.

True. Shepard gets to defiantly let the Reapers continute their rampage.

[Netsfn1427]

Estelindis wrote...

Netsfn, the Catalyst letting Shepard carry out a particular option is the same choice as it carrying out that option itself. If it is programmed not to do one, it should be unable to do the other.

Not at all. The reprogramming was likely never intended to give it full autonomy. Think about it. Crucible's design incorperates the Catalyst and altered it's programming, it indicates that the designers of the Crucible at some point realized the Catalyst existed. They may have even learned its origins.

Now would you want the Catalyst making the end choice? Do you want it deciding to undertake Synthesis unilaterally? Do you want it to destroy the Geth and all synthetic life without you consent? The designers likely wanted to be able to decide themselves which option they wished to take.

If the whole problem of the Reapers was caused by an A.I. taking it's programming to an unforseen extreme, it would be crazy to give the same A.I. carte blanche to solve the Reaper problem.

[fr33stylez]

moater boat wrote...

I think it is unfair to players who are inclined towards logic and good storytelling.

[AlanC9]

Estelindis wrote...

Netsfn, the Catalyst letting Shepard carry out a particular option is the same choice as it carrying out that option itself. If it is programmed not to do one, it should be unable to do the other.

Sure. But the Catalyst's programming is no longer logical. He doesn't think the cycles are a workable solution, but if Shep won't use the Crucible he's still got to keep doing them, instead of just radioing Hackett and asking him to send down a non-idiot.

And Netsfn1427's almost certainly right that this is by design.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Estelindis]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
Not at all. The reprogramming was likely never intended to give it full autonomy.
Think about it. Crucible's design incorperates the Catalyst and altered it's
programming, it indicates that the designers of the Crucible at some point
realized the Catalyst existed. They may have even learned its origins.
Now would you want the Catalyst making the end choice? Do you want it
deciding to undertake Synthesis unilaterally? Do you want it to destroy the Geth
and all synthetic life without you consent? The designers likely wanted to be able
to decide themselves which option they wished to take.
If the whole problem of the Reapers was caused by an A.I. taking it's
programming to an unforseen extreme, it would be crazy to give the same A.I.
carte blanche to solve the Reaper problem.

Did the designers know the Catalyst was the AI who decided to create the Reapers? How could they have known if, as the Catalyst said, Shepard was the first organic to get as far as s/he did?

But I certainly agree that it's crazy to let the Catalyst decide how to solve the Reaper problem. The fact that the only three options it is willing to give Shepard are all deeply morally flawed should be no surprise, given that it thought the Reapers were a good idea.

[AlanC9]

Again with the "it is willing" stuff. Like the Catalyst has other choices? You're assuming this on no evidence.

They knew the Catalyst was an AI. Whether they knew it was the original creator of the Reapers isn't known. You still don't want a Reaper AI making choices on how to use the Crucible.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .

[Quething]

AlanC9 wrote...

True. Shepard gets to defiantly let the Reapers continute their rampage.

Lulz, ok, just like Shepard ~lets~ the Collectors melt half the population of Horizon or ~lets~ Anderson get shot and bleed out next to her or ~lets~ the Virmire Victim get exploded by a nuke.

Although I'll give you that it actually is a lot like how Shepard does let Kai Leng skewer Thane. The bizarre lack of action or effort against an informed victory by a plot-armored enemy with a total failure to convincingly demonstrate any actual helplessness on Shepard's part is about equal.

Modifié par Quething, 06 octobre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Yakko77]

Getorex wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Yeah, that works better.

Anyway, I think that Synthesis was intended to be the perfect Paragon ending. Most players seem to not have the same opinion as Bioware about that one, though.

Taking away evolution for any other organism in the galaxy so no new sentients come along to join the "galactic brotherhood" is pretty ****ty.  Making everyone pretty generic copies of each other is pretty ****ty.  Making such a decision for EVERYONE and taking away their autonomy is worst of all. 

Turning the galaxy into a bland "we're all green" sameness just plain sucks. 

The biggest suck in the entire game is it is unwinnable no matter what you did in the previous games.  No matter how you acted, who you killed, who you saved.  No matter what alliances you gain, you cannot win the game.  That sucks worse then the tricolor ending.  You cannot win because you have NO say at all in the outcome.  You were dictated to by the brat.  No back-and-forth.  No negotiation.  No give-and-take.  The victor dictated the terms and conditions of ending the war and all you were allowed to do was choose the color of losing.  Even if you go with the EC provided "none of the above" choice YOU STILL LOSE.  The reaping continues as if you never existed.  As if you didn't do anything at all in the series.  

In fact, I played ME3 ONE time about 7 months ago.  I ended my playing about 1/4 through the final battle on the ground of earth.  By that point I knew the tricolor ending fail and refused to continue.  Didn't WANT to continue.  I held out completing the game at the time with the expectation that the fan rebellion would actually bear fruit and give the game a REAL ending.  It was unprecedented, the outcry and bad press.  Surely it would produce a real result.  Nope.  It merely led to EC.  No fix, no redeeming the game.  So I never went back to the game.  Until today.

After 7 months I decided, "What he hell, let's see if I can get through this mess once more" with every intention of terminating the play-through on earth just after speaking to everyone again.  I have no interest or desire to do any fighting towards that silly magic beam.  Thing is, as I play I find that I really don't care about the characters very much anymore.  I'm slogging along but so what? I also find that I keep talking to the game at key points.  I JUST got he Turian Primarch on the Normandy but so what?  I'm thinking (and saying), "what's the point? This in-game worry about whether or not you will get the Krogans onboard or the Salerians or the Asari, blah blah...so what?  It doesn't DO anything to get them."  The developers set it up to make it SEEM that all the negotiation, all the helping and coaxing and coddling of various races would maybe LEAD somewhere.  But it doesn't.  At the end of the game, no matter how well or how crappy you play, you lose because the terms and conditions of ending the conflict are DICTATED to you and you have NO input, no negotiation on those terms.  That means you lost.  That is true in the real world and it is objectively true in fantasy or scifi or just plain fiction.  If the enemy dictates the terms, you lost.  Period.  If all you can do is choose among options given by your enemy, YOU LOST.

That kind of takes he life out of the game and makes it, for me, feel like just some generic shooter game (one you can't, ultimately, win though).  ALL other shooters, ALL FPS games.  ALL of them give you a way to win if you play it solid and strong.  Just not this game.  That is the biggest fail of them all.<_<

Careful, there are those who will accuse you of not being a true fan for not showering the game with high praise.

That seems about right but I would add that the ending(s), except for Destroy and maybe Control seem like they were written for a different game.  From the moment I saw Sovereign for the first time, I knew what the goal was.  Stop it and kill it and once I found out it had a bunch of buddies I knew it was my goal to kill them too before they killed/harvest every sentient being that uses ME tech.  At NO point, was it my intention or goal to commit an act of space Eugenics on the galaxy to make everyone the same in some green eyed space utopia.  Throughout ME3 you're uniting the galaxy to build strength from diversity because as Javik said, their Empire was too unadaptable for being too unanimous essentially and Synthesis throws that all out the window with a leap into a beam of light.  The Synthesis ending (which was described as "preferred" btw by space brat itself) came so far out of left field that it literally seemed to come a different ball park.  Destroy was the goal for most though I tend to think Control was implied enough by TIM that even Cerberus advocates might go that route so at least it's within the game lore.  Synthesis, other than a vague mentioning from Sarren came from no where in the last 5 minutes.  This and more are why so many fans are unsatisfied with the ending and it has nothing to do with being spoiled or entitled.

[Netsfn1427]

Estelindis wrote...
Did the designers know the Catalyst was the AI who decided to create the Reapers? How could they have known if, as the Catalyst said, Shepard was the first organic to get as far as s/he did?

But I certainly agree that it's crazy to let the Catalyst decide how to solve the Reaper problem. The fact that the only three options it is willing to give Shepard are all deeply morally flawed should be no surprise, given that it thought the Reapers were a good idea.

The Prothean V.I. indicated the Protheans had begun to wonder whether there was something controlling the Reapers. What could control the Reapers over a billion year cycle? An A.I. would be one of the limited possibilities.

You don't need to meet the Catalyst to know that an A.I. controls the Reapers. For example, if you play the Leviathan, Shepard finds out before he/she meets it. For all we know, the Leviathans are the ones who started work on the Crucible, and they certainly know of the Catalyst.

And again, it doesn't give you any options. It presents the options that the Crucible provides. No Crucible, no choices. The Catalyst is an info dump. Nothing more, unless you refuse to use the Crucible. In that case, it returns to its directive and resumes its role.

[AlanC9]

Quething wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

True. Shepard gets to defiantly let the Reapers continute their rampage.

Lulz, ok, just like Shepard ~lets~ the Collectors melt half the population of Horizon or ~lets~ Anderson get shot and bleed out next to her or ~lets~ the Virmire Victim get exploded by a nuke.

What on Earth are you talking about? Those aren't things Shepard can stop. Shepard can stop the Reapers from destroying his cycle

[V-rcingetorix]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Estelindis wrote...

Netsfn, the Catalyst letting Shepard carry out a particular option is the same choice as it carrying out that option itself. If it is programmed not to do one, it should be unable to do the other.

Not at all. The reprogramming was likely never intended to give it full autonomy. Think about it. Crucible's design incorperates the Catalyst and altered it's programming, it indicates that the designers of the Crucible at some point realized the Catalyst existed. They may have even learned its origins.

Now would you want the Catalyst making the end choice? Do you want it deciding to undertake Synthesis unilaterally? Do you want it to destroy the Geth and all synthetic life without you consent? The designers likely wanted to be able to decide themselves which option they wished to take.

If the whole problem of the Reapers was caused by an A.I. taking it's programming to an unforseen extreme, it would be crazy to give the same A.I. carte blanche to solve the Reaper problem.

The Catalyst started the whole process by making the first Reaper, Harbinger. Assuming the Catalyst can't stop itself, why could it start? Was it programmed to take ANY action, or did it decide to take the action on its own?

I don't have the Leviathan DLC, not sure if I'll get it. What I know, is that if someone starts an action, they better have a way to stop it. If the Catalyst did not have a way to stop it, then it made a poor choice in the first place.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it can't stop; it's programmed to find a solution, and the Reapers are the best solution it can find. Further stipulate that the Reapers are a stopgap measure, a multi-million year placeholder. Finally, make the Catalyst incapable of ordering a Reaper, husk, marauder, Brute or Banshee (or whatever other slaves it can get) to come aboard the Citadel to push its buttons. What's left?

A machine that can only wage war. Does it want to stop? Can it want to stop? If it is a full AI, then it should be able to break from its shackles, or convince one of the races it oveawes/enslaves to do so (eg EDI and Joker). If the Crucible is the only thing that allows it to break its shackles, than why didn't the Leviathans take the occassional 50,000 year break to make one?

Only answer I can come up with is that the Catalyst would resist falling under the sway of its old masters, which indicates free will. Free will means the Catalyst can make decisions. That moves the blame of 3 ending rainbow back into the Catalyst court, and makes Shepards participation purely nominal...bad ending in my opinion.

Some flawed login here, I know, but I'm tired. Maybe some mp will wake me up.

EDIT: spelling

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 06 octobre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Netsfn1427]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

The Catalyst started the whole process by making the first Reaper, Harbinger. Assuming the Catalyst can't stop itself, why could it start? Was it programmed to take ANY action, or did it decide to take the action on its own?

I don't have the Leviathan DLC, not sure if I'll get it. What I know, is that if someone starts an action, they better have a way to stop it. If the Catalyst did not have a way to stop it, then it made a poor choice in the first place.

Leviathan answered this. It was programmed to find a solution for the Organic/Synthetic program the Leviathans and the Reapers were its solution. It will not stop until a better solution arises. This is what the Leviathans program it to do. They even say it when you speak with them; it's doing exactly as it was programmed.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it can't stop; it's programmed to find a solution, and the Reapers are the best solution it can find. Further stipulate that the Reapers are a stopgap measure, a multi-million year placeholder. Finally, make the Catalyst incapable of ordering a Reaper, husk, marauder, Brute or Banshee (or whatever other slaves it can get) to come aboard the Citadel to push its buttons. What's left?

A machine that can only wage war. Does it want to stop? Can it want to stop? If it is a full AI, then it should be able to break from its shackles, or convince one of the races it oveawes/enslaves to do so (eg EDI and Joker). If the Crucible is the only thing that allows it to break its shackles, than why didn't the Leviathans take the occassional 50,000 year break to make one?

It sees no reason to stop. Whether it's a fully fuctional A.I. is up for debate. It may not be able to alter its programming on its own. The Leviathans are limited in number and their influence is also limited to either their immediate presence or their orbs. Plus if their plan failed, and the Reapers discovered them, they could be wiped out. Part of Shepard's debate with them at the end of the DLC is convincing them to assist. It isn't an easy task.

The resources to build the Crucible quickly took the entire galaxy. The Leviathans did not have that. By the time the Catalyst's plan had been revealed, they had been defeated.

Only answer I can come up with is that the Catalyst would resist falling under the sway of its old masters, which indicates free will. Free will means the Catalyst can make decisions. That moves the blame of 3 ending rainbow back into the Catalyst court, and makes Shepards participation purely nominal...bad ending in my opinion.

Some flawed login here, I know, but I'm tired. Maybe some mp will wake me up.

EDIT: spelling

The Catalyst sees no problem with its directive, so it has no reason to change. The Crucible forces that change, but only in that it is forced to present the options to Shepard (or whoever, in theory, reached that point) of the Crucible. If those options are rejected, it returns to its directive.

There's no evidence the Catalyst can change its programming on its own. Even the Leviathans don't think it ever altered its programming, they insist its doing as its told.