1. Harbinger's taunts are fairly self explanitory, he's not just spouting random nonsense.dreman9999 wrote...
1.But how do you see joy? What indicates it? Please, point it out.
2. It only degrades mental function if it's allowed to. That would mean if they want to keep you compitent, you stay compitent.
No logical relevance?...This is from the lore.BatmanTurian wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
A reaper is the minds of organics and synthetics joined as one will inside a reaper body. Those minds are still indoctrianted.BatmanTurian wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
No he did not break out of indoctrination. He had some doubts. Then he was talked, key word, talked int o having implants put in.
That does not scream free will.
Once again, he wasn't a reaper. Stop changing the subject.
Saren many be just one mind and he is still in his original body but, he is still indoctrianted like a reaper.
You are impossible to debate with. Half of what you say has no logic or relevance.
1. Their not. His tausting is just him telling you want he and the reapers plan to doing. No emotion is ever shown during it.Greylycantrope wrote...
1. Harbinger's taunts are fairly self explanitory, he's not just spouting random nonsense.dreman9999 wrote...
1.But how do you see joy? What indicates it? Please, point it out.
2. It only degrades mental function if it's allowed to. That would mean if they want to keep you compitent, you stay compitent.
2. No it always degrades function the speed at which it does so just depends on what degree of control is exerted, over time one's mind always succombs though.
Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:21 .
jtav wrote...
Just to clear this little argument up: I would pick Destroy in a low-moderate EMS situation where Earth would be devastated if I chose Control but fine in Destroy. That's about it.
Modifié par fiendishchicken, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:17 .
First it is spelled against not ageinst.dreman9999 wrote...
But that does not mean he is ageinst destory. That just means it's not his prefered option.KENNY4753 wrote...
Wow........dreman9999 wrote...
He said he would do it as a last means. The option to kill the reapers is no off the table.KENNY4753 wrote...
How does it mean he wouldn't pick it. He said he wouldn't kill them unless it was the last resort.dreman9999 wrote...
Again, that does not mean he would not pick it.
If something is a last resort there is no other option available, therefore they wouldn't be picking it freely, they would be forced to destroy them.
please read this before you respond...
I am not saying they wouldn't destroy the Reapers at all. I am saying that if he had the choice to destroy them or choose something else he would not destroy them but if destroy is the last resort (meaning there is no other option available) he would choose destroy because he had no other choice to pick. That is what the last resort means.
But that does not make this topic ageinst the destory option.KENNY4753 wrote...
First it is spelled against not ageinst.dreman9999 wrote...
But that does not mean he is ageinst destory. That just means it's not his prefered option.KENNY4753 wrote...
Wow........dreman9999 wrote...
He said he would do it as a last means. The option to kill the reapers is no off the table.KENNY4753 wrote...
How does it mean he wouldn't pick it. He said he wouldn't kill them unless it was the last resort.dreman9999 wrote...
Again, that does not mean he would not pick it.
If something is a last resort there is no other option available, therefore they wouldn't be picking it freely, they would be forced to destroy them.
please read this before you respond...
I am not saying they wouldn't destroy the Reapers at all. I am saying that if he had the choice to destroy them or choose something else he would not destroy them but if destroy is the last resort (meaning there is no other option available) he would choose destroy because he had no other choice to pick. That is what the last resort means.
Although I see that you did not read my post. You just posted the same thing again.
Saying that you won't choose something unless it is your only choice means you are against that choice (because if it is your only choice you are forced to pick it). He is against the choice of destroy. Obviously that means that it isn't his preferred option. But if it is the only option he would have to choose it (like he said, he would only kill the Reapers as a last means). That doesn't change the fact that he is against the choice, his opinion on the choice would become irrelevant if he had to kill them as a last resort, since there is no other choice available.
jtav wrote...
The topic? Not per se, no. If you believe killing the Reapers--even though they were mind controlled, not acting freely--is the only way to stop the harvest, then do so.
Modifié par fiendishchicken, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:28 .
Well once again you spelled against wrongdreman9999 wrote...
But that does not make this topic ageinst the destory option.KENNY4753 wrote...
First it is spelled against not ageinst.dreman9999 wrote...
But that does not mean he is ageinst destory. That just means it's not his prefered option.KENNY4753 wrote...
Wow........dreman9999 wrote...
He said he would do it as a last means. The option to kill the reapers is no off the table.KENNY4753 wrote...
How does it mean he wouldn't pick it. He said he wouldn't kill them unless it was the last resort.dreman9999 wrote...
Again, that does not mean he would not pick it.
If something is a last resort there is no other option available, therefore they wouldn't be picking it freely, they would be forced to destroy them.
please read this before you respond...
I am not saying they wouldn't destroy the Reapers at all. I am saying that if he had the choice to destroy them or choose something else he would not destroy them but if destroy is the last resort (meaning there is no other option available) he would choose destroy because he had no other choice to pick. That is what the last resort means.
Although I see that you did not read my post. You just posted the same thing again.
Saying that you won't choose something unless it is your only choice means you are against that choice (because if it is your only choice you are forced to pick it). He is against the choice of destroy. Obviously that means that it isn't his preferred option. But if it is the only option he would have to choose it (like he said, he would only kill the Reapers as a last means). That doesn't change the fact that he is against the choice, his opinion on the choice would become irrelevant if he had to kill them as a last resort, since there is no other choice available.
:lol:Modifié par KENNY4753, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:29 .
KENNY4753 wrote...
First it is spelled against not ageinst.dreman9999 wrote...
But that does not mean he is ageinst destory. That just means it's not his prefered option.KENNY4753 wrote...
Wow........dreman9999 wrote...
He said he would do it as a last means. The option to kill the reapers is no off the table.KENNY4753 wrote...
How does it mean he wouldn't pick it. He said he wouldn't kill them unless it was the last resort.dreman9999 wrote...
Again, that does not mean he would not pick it.
If something is a last resort there is no other option available, therefore they wouldn't be picking it freely, they would be forced to destroy them.
please read this before you respond...
I am not saying they wouldn't destroy the Reapers at all. I am saying that if he had the choice to destroy them or choose something else he would not destroy them but if destroy is the last resort (meaning there is no other option available) he would choose destroy because he had no other choice to pick. That is what the last resort means.
Although I see that you did not read my post. You just posted the same thing again.
Saying that you won't choose something unless it is your only choice means you are against that choice (because if it is your only choice you are forced to pick it). He is against the choice of destroy. Obviously that means that it isn't his preferred option. But if it is the only option he would have to choose it (like he said, he would only kill the Reapers as a last means). That doesn't change the fact that he is against the choice, his opinion on the choice would become irrelevant if he had to kill them as a last resort, since there is no other choice available.
I'm being thick head? You thinking too much in absolutes.KENNY4753 wrote...
Well once again you spelled against wrongdreman9999 wrote...
But that does not make this topic ageinst the destory option.KENNY4753 wrote...
First it is spelled against not ageinst.dreman9999 wrote...
But that does not mean he is ageinst destory. That just means it's not his prefered option.KENNY4753 wrote...
Wow........dreman9999 wrote...
He said he would do it as a last means. The option to kill the reapers is no off the table.KENNY4753 wrote...
How does it mean he wouldn't pick it. He said he wouldn't kill them unless it was the last resort.dreman9999 wrote...
Again, that does not mean he would not pick it.
If something is a last resort there is no other option available, therefore they wouldn't be picking it freely, they would be forced to destroy them.
please read this before you respond...
I am not saying they wouldn't destroy the Reapers at all. I am saying that if he had the choice to destroy them or choose something else he would not destroy them but if destroy is the last resort (meaning there is no other option available) he would choose destroy because he had no other choice to pick. That is what the last resort means.
Although I see that you did not read my post. You just posted the same thing again.
Saying that you won't choose something unless it is your only choice means you are against that choice (because if it is your only choice you are forced to pick it). He is against the choice of destroy. Obviously that means that it isn't his preferred option. But if it is the only option he would have to choose it (like he said, he would only kill the Reapers as a last means). That doesn't change the fact that he is against the choice, his opinion on the choice would become irrelevant if he had to kill them as a last resort, since there is no other choice available.
not to be rude but that is exactly how people view you whenever you start an arguement. You are so thick headed that you do not even think about what other people say before you respond
but so we can actually get a good debate going on, go read my post again and then come up with a response that actually makes sense, with points that try to prove your arguement.
Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:58 .
dreman9999 wrote...
BW started out this series asking the player what they were willing to do and sacrife to stop an unstoppable force. That has not changed.drayfish wrote...
Much as people are already expressing on this thread, I find it truly sad that Bioware's legacy to a series that once celebrated inclusivity and wonder is a series of semantic squabbles about which atrocity is 'less horrifying' than the others, with everyone just being forced to accept, by the mechanics of the story, that they only way people can ever live in peace is if someone - Reaper or 'hero' - ignores free will and inflicts a solution upon them.
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
You have to understand that you may have to get you hands dirty to do what must be done. BW made thisa point when they explained what the spectru's are and do.
You issue is that you could not stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy, but you missing here is that ME was never about stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy.
drayfish wrote...
Name one.Xilizhra wrote...
drayfish wrote...drayfish wrote...
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
Wait, what? Surely you realize there are works of fiction which exhort people to commit atrocities IRL?
While I do certainly see the anti-social bent your going for there, the GTA anti-heroes are predominant self-serving, and operate in a knowingly overt satire – something Mass Effect goes out of its way to eschew. Although considering our choices don't matter by the end – Reapers die no matter what you do; the universe will apparently be 'fine' no matter what you inflicted upon it – maybe they are parodying their whole self-righteous 'Choices matter' motto...Jade8aby88 wrote...
Grand Theft Auto.
From what I understand of Ender's Game (which I freely admit is very little), don't you genocide the enemy that you are fighting, not a race of peaceful allies at your enemy's request...? Still genocide, still horror, but rather a different circumstance.dreman9999 wrote...
Ender's game.
Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 01:45 .
drayfish wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
BW started out this series asking the player what they were willing to do and sacrife to stop an unstoppable force. That has not changed.drayfish wrote...
Much as people are already expressing on this thread, I find it truly sad that Bioware's legacy to a series that once celebrated inclusivity and wonder is a series of semantic squabbles about which atrocity is 'less horrifying' than the others, with everyone just being forced to accept, by the mechanics of the story, that they only way people can ever live in peace is if someone - Reaper or 'hero' - ignores free will and inflicts a solution upon them.
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
You have to understand that you may have to get you hands dirty to do what must be done. BW made thisa point when they explained what the spectru's are and do.
You issue is that you could not stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy, but you missing here is that ME was never about stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy.
That is a really childish oversimplification of my position; and quite a sad commentary if you are really hoping to denigrate the respect of people's autonomy and freedom with some selfish, self-righteous ego trip.
The ME games have posed a number of nebulous quandaries for the player to explore - the killing of the Rachni; the rewriting/killing of the rebel Geth; the curing or not of the Genophage, etc. At no point have I dismissed those - and they offer many, multifaceted responses to quite complex issues. My argument is solely about the ending. I maintain that it is grossly inaccurate to describe being forced to choose between one of three war crimes by lazy, funnelled game mechanics, to any sort of genuine debate or critique of war. There is no depth to such a scenario; no statement about human suffering or tenacity; it literally amounts to which ethical horror is less bad? That's not meaningful, it's just a vulgar hypothetical that reveals nothing.
The decision that you are trying to justify is infantile. It literally does not matter what you choose: Destroy, Control, Synthesise; the universe will go on; no one will express any concern over the horrors that were employed to 'save' them; no one even mentions any of the negative connotations that these endings present. Genocide; totalitarian mind control; eugenics? Ah, who cares, we won. Shepard's a hero and we're fine. The end.
Again, that's not deep. That's not morally ambiguous. It's patronising coddling that exhibits none of the ambiguity you appear to want to celebrate.
And perhaps more disturbingly, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. 'Sacrifice' is supposed to be about personal sacrifice for others. But that's in no way what is going on at the end of the game. Shepard is already dead by the time she talks it out with King Reaper: that bullet wound (as far as she knows) does not look to be getting stitched up. She's done for. What she therefore 'sacrifices' is other people's freedoms; other people's right to life. That is no longer a 'sacrifice' in the modern conception of the word.
Instead, that's some creepy appeasing-the-angry-gods type 'sacrifice'. That's 'I bring you this offering to spare my peoples...' and laying others down on the altar to pay for the sins of the universe.
And considering that it is the Reaper's Leader who is compelling you to do it - kill your friends; mutate your friends; become the new overlord of your friends - all to serve his racist agenda, it reduces Shepard to a snivelling, fearful worshiper, willing to throw her fellow civilisations under the bus.
That's not 'getting your hands dirty'; that's becoming the very thing that you fought to stop, and having your friends and family pay the price.
drayfish wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
BW started out this series asking the player what they were willing to do and sacrife to stop an unstoppable force. That has not changed.drayfish wrote...
Much as people are already expressing on this thread, I find it truly sad that Bioware's legacy to a series that once celebrated inclusivity and wonder is a series of semantic squabbles about which atrocity is 'less horrifying' than the others, with everyone just being forced to accept, by the mechanics of the story, that they only way people can ever live in peace is if someone - Reaper or 'hero' - ignores free will and inflicts a solution upon them.
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
You have to understand that you may have to get you hands dirty to do what must be done. BW made thisa point when they explained what the spectru's are and do.
You issue is that you could not stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy, but you missing here is that ME was never about stay on the high moral ground to save the galexy.
That is a really childish oversimplification of my position; and quite a sad commentary if you are really hoping to denigrate the respect of people's autonomy and freedom with some selfish, self-righteous ego trip.
The ME games have posed a number of nebulous quandaries for the player to explore - the killing of the Rachni; the rewriting/killing of the rebel Geth; the curing or not of the Genophage, etc. At no point have I dismissed those - and they offer many, multifaceted responses to quite complex issues. My argument is solely about the ending. I maintain that it is grossly inaccurate to describe being forced to choose between one of three war crimes by lazy, funnelled game mechanics, to any sort of genuine debate or critique of war. There is no depth to such a scenario; no statement about human suffering or tenacity; it literally amounts to which ethical horror is less bad? That's not meaningful, it's just a vulgar hypothetical that reveals nothing.
The decision that you are trying to justify is infantile. It literally does not matter what you choose: Destroy, Control, Synthesise; the universe will go on; no one will express any concern over the horrors that were employed to 'save' them; no one even mentions any of the negative connotations that these endings present. Genocide; totalitarian mind control; eugenics? Ah, who cares, we won. Shepard's a hero and we're fine. The end.
Again, that's not deep. That's not morally ambiguous. It's patronising coddling that exhibits none of the ambiguity you appear to want to celebrate.
And perhaps more disturbingly, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. 'Sacrifice' is supposed to be about personal sacrifice for others. But that's in no way what is going on at the end of the game. Shepard is already dead by the time she talks it out with King Reaper: that bullet wound (as far as she knows) does not look to be getting stitched up. She's done for. What she therefore 'sacrifices' is other people's freedoms; other people's right to life. That is no longer a 'sacrifice' in the modern conception of the word.
Instead, that's some creepy appeasing-the-angry-gods type 'sacrifice'. That's 'I bring you this offering to spare my peoples...' and laying others down on the altar to pay for the sins of the universe.
And considering that it is the Reaper's Leader who is compelling you to do it - kill your friends; mutate your friends; become the new overlord of your friends - all to serve his racist agenda, it reduces Shepard to a snivelling, fearful worshiper, willing to throw her fellow civilisations under the bus.
That's not 'getting your hands dirty'; that's becoming the very thing that you fought to stop, and having your friends and family pay the price.
drayfish wrote...
drayfish wrote...
Name one.Xilizhra wrote...
drayfish wrote...drayfish wrote...
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
Wait, what? Surely you realize there are works of fiction which exhort people to commit atrocities IRL?While I do certainly see the anti-social bent your going for there, the GTA anti-heroes are predominant self-serving, and operate in a knowingly overt satire – something Mass Effect goes out of its way to eschew. Although considering our choices don't matter by the end – Reapers die no matter what you do; the universe will apparently be 'fine' no matter what you inflicted upon it – maybe they are parodying their whole self-righteous 'Choices matter' motto...Jade8aby88 wrote...
Grand Theft Auto.
From what I understand of Ender's Game (which I freely admit is very little), don't you genocide the enemy that you are fighting, not a race of peaceful allies at your enemy's request...? Still genocide, still horror, but rather a different circumstance.dreman9999 wrote...
Ender's game.
Or did I miss something?
dreman9999 wrote...
drayfish wrote...
drayfish wrote...
Name one.Xilizhra wrote...
drayfish wrote...drayfish wrote...
Fine work, Bioware. I have literally never seen a fiction advocate something so horrifying, nor reduce the discussion of its fanbase so absolutely.
Wait, what? Surely you realize there are works of fiction which exhort people to commit atrocities IRL?While I do certainly see the anti-social bent your going for there, the GTA anti-heroes are predominant self-serving, and operate in a knowingly overt satire – something Mass Effect goes out of its way to eschew. Although considering our choices don't matter by the end – Reapers die no matter what you do; the universe will apparently be 'fine' no matter what you inflicted upon it – maybe they are parodying their whole self-righteous 'Choices matter' motto...Jade8aby88 wrote...
Grand Theft Auto.
From what I understand of Ender's Game (which I freely admit is very little), don't you genocide the enemy that you are fighting, not a race of peaceful allies at your enemy's request...? Still genocide, still horror, but rather a different circumstance.dreman9999 wrote...
Ender's game.
Or did I miss something?
When was the last time a war we had ended in Genocide?
Yes, we kill the enemy but never kill off everyone of them including the civilians.
Heck, Ender himself was horrified with what he did.
Modifié par Wayning_Star, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:13 .
Assuming they actually are "innocent" and "enslaved"...jtav wrote...
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Shooting the tube would thus mean freeing them from their millions of years of torment.
"You. Whatever species was harvested to make you? They're dead. They died thousands of years ago. And now, they can rest in peace."
No. Killing a sapient being to "end their torment" is wrong. Killing them in self-defense wouldn't be, if it were necessary.
jtav wrote...
The topic? Not per se, no. If you believe killing the Reapers--even though they were mind controlled, not acting freely--is the only way to stop the harvest, then do so.
Modifié par Zardoc, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:31 .
dreman9999 wrote...
drayfish wrote...
That is a really childish oversimplification of my position; and quite a sad commentary if you are really hoping to denigrate the respect of people's autonomy and freedom with some selfish, self-righteous ego trip.
The ME games have posed a number of nebulous quandaries for the player to explore - the killing of the Rachni; the rewriting/killing of the rebel Geth; the curing or not of the Genophage, etc. At no point have I dismissed those - and they offer many, multifaceted responses to quite complex issues. My argument is solely about the ending. I maintain that it is grossly inaccurate to describe being forced to choose between one of three war crimes by lazy, funnelled game mechanics, to any sort of genuine debate or critique of war. There is no depth to such a scenario; no statement about human suffering or tenacity; it literally amounts to which ethical horror is less bad? That's not meaningful, it's just a vulgar hypothetical that reveals nothing.
The decision that you are trying to justify is infantile. It literally does not matter what you choose: Destroy, Control, Synthesise; the universe will go on; no one will express any concern over the horrors that were employed to 'save' them; no one even mentions any of the negative connotations that these endings present. Genocide; totalitarian mind control; eugenics? Ah, who cares, we won. Shepard's a hero and we're fine. The end.
Again, that's not deep. That's not morally ambiguous. It's patronising coddling that exhibits none of the ambiguity you appear to want to celebrate.
And perhaps more disturbingly, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. 'Sacrifice' is supposed to be about personal sacrifice for others. But that's in no way what is going on at the end of the game. Shepard is already dead by the time she talks it out with King Reaper: that bullet wound (as far as she knows) does not look to be getting stitched up. She's done for. What she therefore 'sacrifices' is other people's freedoms; other people's right to life. That is no longer a 'sacrifice' in the modern conception of the word.
Instead, that's some creepy appeasing-the-angry-gods type 'sacrifice'. That's 'I bring you this offering to spare my peoples...' and laying others down on the altar to pay for the sins of the universe.
And considering that it is the Reaper's Leader who is compelling you to do it - kill your friends; mutate your friends; become the new overlord of your friends - all to serve his racist agenda, it reduces Shepard to a snivelling, fearful worshiper, willing to throw her fellow civilisations under the bus.
That's not 'getting your hands dirty'; that's becoming the very thing that you fought to stop, and having your friends and family pay the price.
You confusing the defination of self sacrific withe the defination of sacrifice. It does not require willingness. Trying to define the sacrifice in teh end of me3 as flaulty is a clear sign that you do have an issus of having to comprimise. And even then the ending is left open to the player to choose on their own to decide if Shepard live or not.
And the catalyst is not in control of waht the crucible does. It has no control over what it does, out side synthesis...And even then, it need your coroperation to do it. You're in control over what happens, but you have no control over the choices on hand...Like every choice in the series. The catalyst is just as much as hampered by the choices on hand as you are...Even moreso becasue it's depending on you to choose.
And you seem to ignore my point when I stated "BW made thisa point when they explained what the spectru's are and do." when you complain about the choices on hand.
Sorry but you are clearly complaining about not being able to take the moral high gound to take down the reapers if you decrible the choice on hand as "three war crimes".
This is just a case of you not like the choice you have to make. Their is no way I or anyone will ever convince to like or even be ok with the endings...But your missing the fact that you just upset because you can't take the high moral ground.
But the reapers areenslaved. The very means of how they are made shows that they are. They are the remains of races who mind have been uploaded to a reaper body made from the ground up bodies. The reapers when created are not given a choice to follow or not...They start out being programmed to harvest. That means they are slaves.Zardoc wrote...
Assuming they actually are "innocent" and "enslaved"...jtav wrote...
DeinonSlayer wrote...
Shooting the tube would thus mean freeing them from their millions of years of torment.
"You. Whatever species was harvested to make you? They're dead. They died thousands of years ago. And now, they can rest in peace."
No. Killing a sapient being to "end their torment" is wrong. Killing them in self-defense wouldn't be, if it were necessary.
...the options are to let them live and keep reaping, keep them "enslaved" , space magic that alters the very fabric of the galaxy against its collective will (with who knows what kind of side effects) and destroying them.
So yeah, Destroy is pretty much the only viable option in such a scenario.
But this discussion is moot since the Reapers aren't innocent nor enslaved. They aren't the race which was used to create them anymore. They are soulless killers following a flawed AI.jtav wrote...
The topic? Not per se, no. If you believe killing the Reapers--even though they were mind controlled, not acting freely--is the only way to stop the harvest, then do so.
Yeah, but they aren't, so what's the big friggin deal?
What borderline name calling?Where did I even hint that I'm trying to insult you. All I said a most is that you won't like what I'm saying...Which is very clear you don't.drayfish wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
drayfish wrote...
That is a really childish oversimplification of my position; and quite a sad commentary if you are really hoping to denigrate the respect of people's autonomy and freedom with some selfish, self-righteous ego trip.
The ME games have posed a number of nebulous quandaries for the player to explore - the killing of the Rachni; the rewriting/killing of the rebel Geth; the curing or not of the Genophage, etc. At no point have I dismissed those - and they offer many, multifaceted responses to quite complex issues. My argument is solely about the ending. I maintain that it is grossly inaccurate to describe being forced to choose between one of three war crimes by lazy, funnelled game mechanics, to any sort of genuine debate or critique of war. There is no depth to such a scenario; no statement about human suffering or tenacity; it literally amounts to which ethical horror is less bad? That's not meaningful, it's just a vulgar hypothetical that reveals nothing.
The decision that you are trying to justify is infantile. It literally does not matter what you choose: Destroy, Control, Synthesise; the universe will go on; no one will express any concern over the horrors that were employed to 'save' them; no one even mentions any of the negative connotations that these endings present. Genocide; totalitarian mind control; eugenics? Ah, who cares, we won. Shepard's a hero and we're fine. The end.
Again, that's not deep. That's not morally ambiguous. It's patronising coddling that exhibits none of the ambiguity you appear to want to celebrate.
And perhaps more disturbingly, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. 'Sacrifice' is supposed to be about personal sacrifice for others. But that's in no way what is going on at the end of the game. Shepard is already dead by the time she talks it out with King Reaper: that bullet wound (as far as she knows) does not look to be getting stitched up. She's done for. What she therefore 'sacrifices' is other people's freedoms; other people's right to life. That is no longer a 'sacrifice' in the modern conception of the word.
Instead, that's some creepy appeasing-the-angry-gods type 'sacrifice'. That's 'I bring you this offering to spare my peoples...' and laying others down on the altar to pay for the sins of the universe.
And considering that it is the Reaper's Leader who is compelling you to do it - kill your friends; mutate your friends; become the new overlord of your friends - all to serve his racist agenda, it reduces Shepard to a snivelling, fearful worshiper, willing to throw her fellow civilisations under the bus.
That's not 'getting your hands dirty'; that's becoming the very thing that you fought to stop, and having your friends and family pay the price.
You confusing the defination of self sacrific withe the defination of sacrifice. It does not require willingness. Trying to define the sacrifice in teh end of me3 as flaulty is a clear sign that you do have an issus of having to comprimise. And even then the ending is left open to the player to choose on their own to decide if Shepard live or not.
And the catalyst is not in control of waht the crucible does. It has no control over what it does, out side synthesis...And even then, it need your coroperation to do it. You're in control over what happens, but you have no control over the choices on hand...Like every choice in the series. The catalyst is just as much as hampered by the choices on hand as you are...Even moreso becasue it's depending on you to choose.
And you seem to ignore my point when I stated "BW made thisa point when they explained what the spectru's are and do." when you complain about the choices on hand.
Sorry but you are clearly complaining about not being able to take the moral high gound to take down the reapers if you decrible the choice on hand as "three war crimes".
This is just a case of you not like the choice you have to make. Their is no way I or anyone will ever convince to like or even be ok with the endings...But your missing the fact that you just upset because you can't take the high moral ground.
Aside from being borderline name-calling (I'm not sure how many times someone can type 'moral high ground' before it loses meaning, but good on you for trying), your comments indicate that you may not have actually bothered reading my post... I am fine with the game compelling the player to make tough choices. Indeed, I encourage it.
But this is not a tough choice. Not at all. You have to pick one of three options or you can't 'win' - and no matter what you choose everything is deliriously happy and great. None of that is deep or difficult. Indeed, the game actively strips out any moral compromise by wallpapering over the disturbing nature of your choice in those saccharine epilogue slides.
In the example of the Ender's Game that you yourself provided, the end of the story is about trying to make people understand the horror that had been visited upon a race of beings, trying to honour the horrible attrocity that was employed - even upon an enemy. There is no such respect paid to the fearful action presented in the end of Mass Effect. The Geth slaughter is ignored; no one is shown bothered by the forced genetic mutation of Synthesis; no one is even bothered to be ruled by the Uber-Shepard in Reaper form...
You claim to want depth and moral ambiguity, but the ending offers none of that - merely wholesale ignoring the violations of freedom and total moral compromise that was inflicted. The ending patronises the player, telling you none of that mattered. That's not revealing, it's childish.
And where did 'The Catalyst wants Synthesis' come from? ...I'm not sure there's any point continuing this discussion if I'm ultimately combating your headcanon.
Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:55 .
drayfish wrote...
The decision that you are trying to justify is infantile. It literally does not matter what you choose: Destroy, Control, Synthesise; the universe will go on; no one will express any concern over the horrors that were employed to 'save' them; no one even mentions any of the negative connotations that these endings present. Genocide; totalitarian mind control; eugenics? Ah, who cares, we won. Shepard's a hero and we're fine. The end.
Modifié par AlanC9, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:10 .
Retour en haut