985 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

ADeadDiehard wrote...

I think it was decided long ago that "Just following orders" is a bullsh*t excuse.

But being under some sort of mental subversion is. 

[Alienboy411676]

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.

So I gather then that you didn't unplug the machine from that Batarian in the Refugee camps on the Citadel because you thought it was "wrong"?

That would also mean that killing Balik in Bringing Down the Sky after you shoot him and injure him would be "wrong" to you.  Even though even in the game itself it's considered renegade to let him sit there and bleed out.

It's like a case I read not too long ago about a guy who was into some sport and very physically active who became completely paralyzed from his neck down and couldn't even feed himself, nor could he speak  and he was blind and deaf (I don't remember what caused him to be in that state, but it was pretty bad. Also I could be wrong about the deaf or mute thing, I'm having trouble remembering exactly) and he was trying basically to get legal permission to have someone kill him.  They ruled against him and wouldn't allow it.  Seriously...if I was blind, deaf, couldn't speak, and was paralyzed from the neck down...I wouldn't want to live either.  You may as well be confined in a tiny hole on a deserted planet somewhere in complete darkness.  You can't move, speak, hear anything, see anything, or even feel anything touching you.  It'd probably be the closest experience any human being could have to being literally non-existant.  It would be terrifying.  

Killing someone who wants to die to end constant, unchanging torment or pain, is what people call "mercy".  It's WRONG if you turn your back to them and walk away, leaving them writhing in agony.  You're being narrow-minded and self-righteous, and you're being selfish.  Turning your back to someone who is in a constant state of agony and wanting to die just to satisfy your own personal belief of morality - selfish.

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

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.

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.

And yes, it is a tough choice, why? Because it not you on the line, it's the galexies fate. Last time I checked, Iwas fighting to make sure everyone I care for servived or as many people I cared for servived and the races servived, or at least as many of the races did so. Any choice I make in the end effects them. What ever I choose, I choose based on the resulst of what will happen to them. 
Yes, the choices in the end are all moraly questionable...But it is something I have to do to get to my goal. This is how war is. War has you do many questionable moral things to get to your goal.
It does not make the choice you make pointless if there is no choice with a inheritly bad result. It opens it up to you how you feel about the results.

Also...

1. Ender's game is about how the lack of undersatand can lead to conflict and needless conflict. The entire war they had with the bugger happen becasue of a miss understanding of each other culture.
2.The result of the human race seeing the action of killing the bugger off as a crime was something that took time to be even revaled as a point. Any relivency of Shepard action to be looked at in horror would be based on the reaction for the people of the furture and the player.
3. And synthesis, I sorry if you late on getting this but it is mass indocrination. It's up to you to get it.

You not getting it that it is up to you to see any gain or ill in the ending. This not a story where they give you an abolute awnser. The means what leasons learnt from this up to the player. Your not considering hat this is an interactive peice.

I have no idea what you are implying my reminding me that this is an 'interactive' piece of narrative - indeed, that's pretty much at the heart of my issues with it.  It forces the player to 'interact' with the scenario it presents by forcing some kind of ethical atrocity, and then utterly excusing or ignoring the fact that such a crime has been committed, all for the 'greater good'. 

Yet again: that is not deep.  It says nothing of the true sacrifices that people are willing to make to protect what is sacred to them.  What it seems to say instead is that faith and respect for the autonomy of others are just roadblocks in the way of doing what needs to be done:

'Yeah, yeah, sure; you Geth have an autonomous right to exist... but not if organics want to live too...  Then you get to die and be forgotten.'

'Whoop - civilisations have the right to live freely without being lorded over by an unstoppable force of killing machines that want to dictate how the universe should function...  Unless the one leading that armada is me...  Then it's all good.'

'Hey, we civilisations are enlightened enough to evolve naturally, to respect the sanctity of our own customs and beliefs and to accept others freely without making needless war... Unless some maniac says we need to fundamentally change everyone against their will, then it's okay to mutate every being into the same bland DNA, obliterating biodiversity in an arrogantly racist purge.'

The ending communicate to the player that there is no way to win a war without utterly violating a fundamental human right.  That is horrifying and irresponsible message to send, one that celebrates total moral relativity in an artless and crass way.  What is communicated to the player is that if you are ultimately going to have to sell out what you believe anyway, then it is best to not believe in anything in the first place - that way you don't have to feel bad when you betray other people's morals.

That's nihilism, not sacrifice.

...And Synthesis is 'mass indoctrination' now?  So let me get this straight: it's not okay to believe what the genocidal, brainwashing Reaper King says when he asks you to mutate everyone, but it's completely cool to buy into his nonsense when he's asking you to turn yourself into a Reaper or Genocide your allies?  That stuff we can believe at face value?

Sadly, I'm not sure you and I will ever be able to come to an understanding because we clearly have such different interpretations of the narrative that hashing it out further is only going to dissolve into recursive loops of headcanon that neither of us can share.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

I know I've asked this before, but how would you have written the epilogues? Same endings, different epilogues. Give it a shot. Do Destroy first, since that's the most popular ending on this board, apparently.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of why this is an actual problem. From what I've seen here everyone's aware of the issues you mention. 

I answered you in the thread that you posed that question - but since you seem to have missed it:

drayfish wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

There's nothing hard about the ending choices. Personally, that's what I find so disgusting about them. The game funnels you into making an arbitrary selection between three ethical horrors (or else it literally tells you that you 'failed') - but it goes out of its way to reassure you that nothing of value was lost in making those decisions, that, ultimately, no matter which war crime you chose, you did the right thing and won the day, and no one has any regrets. Shepard is called an unquestionable hero; everyone is overjoyed (no matter how they may have been violated); and all moral ambiguity is obliterated in an insultingly saccarine gush of celebration.

I'll bite. How would you write a Destroy epilogue?

I'm not sure what you're 'biting' at...

I wasn't daring anyone to do better – and I certainly have no intention of chasing my tail down some reductive semantic squabble trying to justify a premise I find repellent anyway.

But I would suggest that showing a pile of dead Geth would be a start – to, at the very least, acknowledge the dead who were wiped away to make way for this brave new world. At present we don't even see Geth allies fall dead. They're just ignored totally.

Maybe we could even have a grieving Joker, considering the fact that in many play-throughs he is losing the love of his life; perhaps he should watch EDI shudder and die in front of him as the Crucible wave fires. But no. That would upset the 'victory'...

And maybe rather than having Hackett mealy-mouth implying that we can 'rebuild' 'everything' that was lost, the game actually acknowledge that an irreplaceable race of peoples was wiped out. That an entire species of individuals were exterminated so that others might live. Maybe the fiction should directly honour the fact that the Geth were sacrificed on an altar to an angry, intolerant god so that others could be spared.

Indeed, instead we get Hackett stating: 'This victory belongs to each of us... every man, woman, and child. Every civilisation, on every world.'

...Yeah. Yeah, you might be leaving one out there.

Glossing over these facts (as the game currently does) devalues their impact and marginalises the victims and their suffering in a truly grotesque way.

Indeed, the fact that there are people on the BSN who are able to argue that maybe the Catalyst lying, that perhaps Synthetics weren't even killed, and who are therefore able to head canon around the Destroy choice because so little evidence of death was included in game, shows just how poorly established the price of that ending is. And yet we are meant to think of it as 'deep' and morally weighty?

Please.

http://social.biowar...0977/7#14641724

Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:25 .

[dreman9999]

ADeadDiehard wrote...

I think it was decided long ago that "Just following orders" is a bullsh*t excuse.

This is not a case of just following orders. This a case of being hard wire to follow order no matter what you think about it to the point you can't even think ofa point ageinstthe order.

You know ...Indoctrination.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

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.

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.

And yes, it is a tough choice, why? Because it not you on the line, it's the galexies fate. Last time I checked, Iwas fighting to make sure everyone I care for servived or as many people I cared for servived and the races servived, or at least as many of the races did so. Any choice I make in the end effects them. What ever I choose, I choose based on the resulst of what will happen to them. 
Yes, the choices in the end are all moraly questionable...But it is something I have to do to get to my goal. This is how war is. War has you do many questionable moral things to get to your goal.
It does not make the choice you make pointless if there is no choice with a inheritly bad result. It opens it up to you how you feel about the results.

Also...

1. Ender's game is about how the lack of undersatand can lead to conflict and needless conflict. The entire war they had with the bugger happen becasue of a miss understanding of each other culture.
2.The result of the human race seeing the action of killing the bugger off as a crime was something that took time to be even revaled as a point. Any relivency of Shepard action to be looked at in horror would be based on the reaction for the people of the furture and the player.
3. And synthesis, I sorry if you late on getting this but it is mass indocrination. It's up to you to get it.

You not getting it that it is up to you to see any gain or ill in the ending. This not a story where they give you an abolute awnser. The means what leasons learnt from this up to the player. Your not considering hat this is an interactive peice.

I have no idea what you are implying my reminding me that this is an 'interactive' piece of narrative - indeed, that's pretty much at the heart of my issues with it.  It forces the player to 'interact' with the scenario it presents by forcing some kind of ethical atrocity, and then utterly excusing or ignoring the fact that such a crime has been committed, all for the 'greater good'. 

Yet again: that is not deep.  It says nothing of the true sacrifices that people are willing to make to protect what is sacred to them.  What it seems to say instead is that faith and respect for the autonomy of others are just roadblocks in the way of doing what needs to be done:

'Yeah, yeah, sure; you Geth have an autonomous right to exist... but not if organics want to live too...  Then you get to die and be forgotten.'

'Whoop - civilisations have the right to live freely without being lorded over by an unstoppable force of killing machines that want to dictate how the universe should function...  Unless the one leading that armada is me...  Then it's all good.'

'Hey, we civilisations are enlightened enough to evolve naturally, to respect the sanctity of our own customs and beliefs and to accept others freely without making needless war... Unless some maniac says we need to fundamentally change everyone against their will, then it's okay to mutate every being into the same bland DNA, obliterating biodiversity in an arrogantly racist purge.'

The ending communicate to the player that there is no way to win a war without utterly violating a fundamental human right.  That is horrifying and irresponsible message to send, one that celebrates total moral relativity in an artless and crass way.  What is communicated to the player is that if you are ultimately going to have to sell out what you believe anyway, then it is best to not believe in anything in the first place - that way you don't have to feel bad when you betray other people's morals.

That's nihilism, not sacrifice.

...And Synthesis is 'mass indoctrination' now?  So let me get this straight: it's not okay to believe what the genocidal, brainwashing Reaper King says when he asks you to mutate everyone, but it's completely cool to buy into his nonsense when he's asking you to turn yourself into a Reaper or Genocide your allies?  That stuff we can believe at face value?

Sadly, I'm not sure you and I will ever be able to come to an understanding because we clearly have such different interpretations of the narrative that hashing it out further is only going to dissolve into recursive loops of headcanon that neither of us can share.

In an rpg we don't choose the events we have to face...Just how we react to them.
And your still confusing the meaning of sacrifice with self sacrifice.

The depth come with how you react to the events on hand, not just the events on hand. Issues of moral conflict.

And if your take on it is"what faith and respect for the autonomy of others are just roadblocks in the way of doing what needs to be done" than that is your take.

I can't convince you other wise. Why do I say this? ME is not a story with a single message. It's a story with many themes but it leave what ever massege the story is telling up to the player.
You veiw the actions in the game and decide what that message is.

You have your view of the message, I have mine. And that is the depth of this game.

I'm not going to tell you what the message is of ME is becasue it's up to you. A thing you seem to half get and half not get.
Think of it as a mirror that shows your own personal turth....It won't be very kind.

If you see the ending as nihilism, then that 's the reality you're facing.....You not always going to like the reflection you're going to see.

The ending is left open enough for us to decide the long term results of our choice based of some of th ehort term results.

If you conserned over why it does not deplay the negative aspectsof you're choice or a have a straight wrong choice....then you're missing the fact that it's up to you to decide that...Unless till bw say other wise.

It's up to us to beleive what is what.
But you also seem to miss one fact. The catalyst has no control over crucible. He is not the one that lets it blow everything up in low ems. He not the one that choices if you can control the reapers and even when he can get the crucible todo synthesis, he still need to be able to do it.
He does not pick and choose what it does.  The choices he offers in the end is just what it does reguardless if he is there or not out side synthesis.

If you not willing to do what need to be done...Well there the refuse choice that has someone make the win for you well after everyone you loveand carefor in the series is dead.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:05 .

[fr33stylez]

jtav wrote...

If it were the only way, sure. It's not.

When the 'other ways' involve either controlling the zombies or turning every living creature in the galaxy into a cyborg, I'll kill the zombie.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:52 .

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

In an rpg we don't choose the events we have to face...Just how we react to them.
And your still confusing the meaning of sacrifice with self sacrifice.

The depth come with how you react to the events on hand, not just the events on hand. Issues of moral conflict.

And if your take on it is"hat faith and respect for the autonomy of others are just roadblocks in the way of doing what needs to be done" thanr that is your take.

I can't convince you other wise. Why do I say this? ME is not a story with a single message. It a story with many themes but it leave what ever massege the story is telling up to the player.
You veiw the actions in the game and decide what that message is.

You have you view of the message, I have mine. And that is the depth of this game.

I'm not going to tell you what the message is of ME is becasue it's up to you. A thing you seem to half get and half not get.
Think of it as a mirror that shows your own personal turth....It won't be very kind.

If you see the ending as nihilism, then that 's the reality you facing.....You not always going to like the reflection you're going to see.

The ending is left open enough for us to decide the long term results of our choice based of some of th ehort term results.

If you conserned over why it does not deplay the negative aspectsof you're choice or a have a straight wrong choice....then you're missing the fact that it's up to you to decide that...Unless till bw say other wise.

It's up to us to beleive what is what.
But you also seem to miss one fact. The catalyst has no control over crucible. He is not the one that lets it blow everything up in low ems. He not the one that choices if you can control the reapers and even when he can get the crucible todo synthesis, he still need to be able to do it.
He is not pick and choose what it does.  he choices he offers in the end is just what it does reguardles if he is there or not out side synthesis.

If you not willing to do what need to be done...Well there the refuse choice that has someone make the win for you well after everyone you loveand carefor in the series is dead.

To be completely honest Dremenn, I often have an extremely difficult time trying to discern what you are saying because of your spelling and grammar - so I apologise if I am misinterpreting you - but this all seems to be highly misguided.

I'm going to leave aside the fact that you seem to have arbitrarily removed the Catalyst from the equation entirely (despite the fact that he explains at length how the Crucible is the answer to his problem, and exhibits, should your refuse his offer, that he can indeed switch it off at will), and again move straight to your muddled notion of 'sacrifice'...

There is a very distinct difference between sacrificing yourself and your own beliefs and throwing someone else into the line of fire and betraying what they believe. One is noble, one is giving of oneself; the other is a shameful dispersal of retribution that undermines everything that a tale of warfare and sacrifice is meant to embody.

Simply put:

You cannot fight against the use of genocide by using genocide.

You cannot fight against oppression and domination by using oppression and domination.

You cannot fight for diversity and unity by obliterating those very traits from the universe.

And you most certainly cannot inflict such horrors upon your own people - at the request of your enemy, to answer his ideology - and still call that a sacrifice.

That is - at best - compromise. But what you are compromising are the fundamental human rights of your fellow citizenry - something that should not be yours to offer.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two notions of 'sacrifice' - genuine sacrifice and the grotesque appeasement of an intolerant monster - is a little disheartening, and is probably at the root of why you and I shall never understand each other's perspective.

Speaking of which: you appear to now be trying to suggest that because I refuse (indeed, literally 'Refuse') to see acquiescence to the ideology and tactics of the enemy, to inflict his horrors on my own people in order to win, that I am somehow nihilistic?

That is... a stretch. To put it mildly.

Nihilism would be not being bothered by that sad truth. It would be happily agreeing that the only way to win is to not bother with all those pathetic beliefs in the sanctity of life and autonomy and unity, because ultimately they get in the way of victory - of, to use your thoroughly depressing words, 'doing what needs to be done'.

If such a greatful disregard for the basic rights of all life is that easy, if it really can numb you to the ghastly message at the heart of this conclusion, then you are welcome to it. Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for, and such a message has no place in the narrative I had thought (until that ending) that I was playing.

Feel free to call me 'naive' and perched on the 'moral high ground' all you want, I would rather embrace such names than the boring, self-immolating cynicism of which you speak.

Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:46 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.
2.No. it's a case of if the reapers allow the indoctrination to advance. Saren tells you this himself. He states it as his"saving grace".
I can link you the converstion if you want.

You should really look at that convo yourself, Saren didn't think he was indoctrinated which is why he assumed his mind was still his own, he was wrong he was already indoctrinated, Soverign simply hadn't exposed him to a strong enough signal so the deteriation occured slower. More control faster deteriation, less control slower deteriation but it happens eventually in either case, refer tour first encouter with Rana Thenopsis for reference.

[MegaSovereign]

....Do they have an alibi?

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.
2.No. it's a case of if the reapers allow the indoctrination to advance. Saren tells you this himself. He states it as his"saving grace".
I can link you the converstion if you want.

You should really look at that convo yourself, Saren didn't think he was indoctrinated which is why he assumed his mind was still his own, he was wrong he was already indoctrinated, Soverign simply hadn't exposed him to a strong enough signal so the deteriation occured slower. More control faster deteriation, less control slower deteriation but it happens eventually in either case, refer tour first encouter with Rana Thenopsis for reference.

Saren was near Sovergin for Nearly 20 years. That alone point tothe fact that the reaperscontrol how indoctrianted a person can be. It's nothing about exposer alone. Saren had plenty of that. It an issue if the advancement of indoctriantion is allowed.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.
2.No. it's a case of if the reapers allow the indoctrination to advance. Saren tells you this himself. He states it as his"saving grace".
I can link you the converstion if you want.

You should really look at that convo yourself, Saren didn't think he was indoctrinated which is why he assumed his mind was still his own, he was wrong he was already indoctrinated, Soverign simply hadn't exposed him to a strong enough signal so the deteriation occured slower. More control faster deteriation, less control slower deteriation but it happens eventually in either case, refer tour first encouter with Rana Thenopsis for reference.

Saren was near Sovergin for Nearly 20 years. That alone point tothe fact that the reaperscontrol how indoctrianted a person can be. It's nothing about exposer alone. Saren had plenty of that. It an issue if the advancement of indoctriantion is allowed.

Which is pretty much what I said, it can be gradual, but it will eventually lead to mental degradation. Remember the collectors? When their minds began to fail tech was used to compensate, degradation's inevitable from indoctrination only difference is how long it can take.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 26 octobre 2012 - 05:44 .

[Ticonderoga117]

For 2.9 game we were led to believe that the Reapers are separate entities that act together to achieve a common goal which leads to us being quite dead. Then suddenly they're innocent? This is not good story-telling.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

In an rpg we don't choose the events we have to face...Just how we react to them.
And your still confusing the meaning of sacrifice with self sacrifice.

The depth come with how you react to the events on hand, not just the events on hand. Issues of moral conflict.

And if your take on it is"hat faith and respect for the autonomy of others are just roadblocks in the way of doing what needs to be done" thanr that is your take.

I can't convince you other wise. Why do I say this? ME is not a story with a single message. It a story with many themes but it leave what ever massege the story is telling up to the player.
You veiw the actions in the game and decide what that message is.

You have you view of the message, I have mine. And that is the depth of this game.

I'm not going to tell you what the message is of ME is becasue it's up to you. A thing you seem to half get and half not get.
Think of it as a mirror that shows your own personal turth....It won't be very kind.

If you see the ending as nihilism, then that 's the reality you facing.....You not always going to like the reflection you're going to see.

The ending is left open enough for us to decide the long term results of our choice based of some of th ehort term results.

If you conserned over why it does not deplay the negative aspectsof you're choice or a have a straight wrong choice....then you're missing the fact that it's up to you to decide that...Unless till bw say other wise.

It's up to us to beleive what is what.
But you also seem to miss one fact. The catalyst has no control over crucible. He is not the one that lets it blow everything up in low ems. He not the one that choices if you can control the reapers and even when he can get the crucible todo synthesis, he still need to be able to do it.
He is not pick and choose what it does.  he choices he offers in the end is just what it does reguardles if he is there or not out side synthesis.

If you not willing to do what need to be done...Well there the refuse choice that has someone make the win for you well after everyone you loveand carefor in the series is dead.

To be completely honest Dremenn, I often have an extremely difficult time trying to discern what you are saying because of your spelling and grammar - so I apologise if I am misinterpreting you - but this all seems to be extremely misguided.

I'm going to entirely leave aside the fact that you seem to have arbitrarily removed the Catalyst from the equation entirely (despite the fact that he explains at length how the Crucible is the answer to his problem, and exhibits, should your refuse his offer, that he can indeed switch it off at will), and again move straight to your muddled notion of 'sacrifice'...

There is a very distinct difference between sacrificing yourself and your own beliefs and throwing someone else into the line of fire and betraying what they believe. One is noble, one is giving of oneself; the other is a shameful dispersal of retribution that undermines everything that a tale of warfare and sacrifice is meant to embody.

Simply put:

You cannot fight against the use of genocide by using genocide.

You cannot fight against oppression and domination by using oppression domination.

You cannot fight for diversity and unity by obliterating those very traits from the universe.

And you most certainly cannot inflict such horrors upon your own people - at the request of your enemy, to answer his ideology - and still call that a sacrifice.

That is - at best - compromise. But what you are compromising are the fundamental human rights of your fellow citizenry - something that should not be yours to offer.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two notions of 'sacrifice' - genuine sacrifice and the grotesque appeasement of an intolerant monster - is a little disheartening, and is probably at the root of why you and I shall never understand each other's perspective.

Speaking of which: you appear to now be trying to suggest that because I refuse (indeed, literally 'Refuse') to see acquiescence to the ideology and tactics of the enemy, to inflict his horrors on my own people in order to win, that I am somehow nihilistic?

That is... a stretch. To put it mildly.

Nihilism would be not being bothered by that sad truth. It would be happily agreeing that the only way to win is to not bother with all those pathetic beliefs in the sanctity of life and autonomy and unity, because ultimately they get in the way of victory - of, to use your thoroughly depressing words, 'doing what needs to be done'.

If such greatful disregard for the rights of all life are so easy to disregard, and really can numb you to the ghastly message at the heart of this conclusion, then you are welcome to it. Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for, and such a message has no place in the narrative I had thought (until that ending) that I was playing.

Feel free to call me 'naive' and perched on the 'moral high ground' all you want, I would rather embrace such names than the boring, self-immolating cynicism of which you speak.

the crucible being the anwser to his problem does not mean he controls it. If that was the case , he would just force synthesis on his own no matter what you feel on the issue. The fact that it needs you to do it makes it clear it has no control over what the crucible does. Added the fact that what it does is effected by how damaged it if make it clear it has no control over what it does as well.

We have 4 versions of the destroy ending and 3 for control for a reason.

Added the fact you stating" Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for" pretty much means you trurly want to the game to end in line with your morals. You do want to end this on the moral high road. You really can'tdeniey that.
And it not a case of self -immolating cynicism. It 's the truth. I'm not critizing you because you want to do things based on your moraly gratifying way. I'm only critizing the fact that you feel that you should alway be able to. Life is not like that.
As much as you may want to, you have to come to terms with the fact that you can't . Trying to devalue the themes of the ending is not going to change that. This is the concept of moral conflict. Bring you to an situation you don't like or in conflict with seeing what you would do.
ME is a game of hypatheticals...A" if this happen and you could only do these things...what would you do?"

I get you don't like the choiced in the end....But you're not get ting is the point is not for you to like the choices in the end. It's to see and what you see your reaction are and reflect on it. Out of that you get your meaning out of this game.

In a rpg we never pick the choice we have on had,we only react to them. Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

For 2.9 game we were led to believe that the Reapers are separate entities that act together to achieve a common goal which leads to us being quite dead. Then suddenly they're innocent? This is not good story-telling.

The reaper was never stated to be anything but being that harvestorganics for some reason. Their intention was never made clear. Stating what their intetion is does not contrdict what's perviusly stated if nothing was ever stated about their intention.

[dreman9999]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.
2.No. it's a case of if the reapers allow the indoctrination to advance. Saren tells you this himself. He states it as his"saving grace".
I can link you the converstion if you want.

You should really look at that convo yourself, Saren didn't think he was indoctrinated which is why he assumed his mind was still his own, he was wrong he was already indoctrinated, Soverign simply hadn't exposed him to a strong enough signal so the deteriation occured slower. More control faster deteriation, less control slower deteriation but it happens eventually in either case, refer tour first encouter with Rana Thenopsis for reference.

Saren was near Sovergin for Nearly 20 years. That alone point tothe fact that the reaperscontrol how indoctrianted a person can be. It's nothing about exposer alone. Saren had plenty of that. It an issue if the advancement of indoctriantion is allowed.

Which is pretty much what I said, it can be gradual, but it will eventually lead to mental degradation. Remember the collectors? When their minds began to fail tech was used to compensate, degradation's inevitable from indoctrination only difference is how long it can take.

That still means if up to the reaperto dictate per person.Note how the salarian stg membersgot indoctrinated into mindless slave in a few days and theywere still in the same range Saren is to Sovergen. Heck, Benezia had a much deeper form of indoctriantion then Saren and She was no the ship for less time While Saren was there with her as she became indoctriantion. If not based on power of the waves alone. It based on wheather the reapers allow it to advance.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

For 2.9 game we were led to believe that the Reapers are separate entities that act together to achieve a common goal which leads to us being quite dead. Then suddenly they're innocent? This is not good story-telling.

Actually, the fact that the writers were able to indoctrinate the players into believing this despite the fact the writers released "The Final Hours" and we saw the notes and stuff, I find this to be hilarious.

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
The reaper was never stated to be anything but being that harvestorganics for some reason. Their intention was never made clear. Stating what their intetion is does not contrdict what's perviusly stated if nothing was ever stated about their intention.

But it does, because it conflicts with the modus operandi that we do know.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The reaper was never stated to be anything but being that harvestorganics for some reason. Their intention was never made clear. Stating what their intetion is does not contrdict what's perviusly stated if nothing was ever stated about their intention.

But it does, because it conflicts with the modus operandi that we do know.

You do understand the modus operandi that we do know about the reaper is near nothing?

[Ticonderoga117]

dreman9999 wrote...
You do understand the modus operandi that we do know about the reaper is near nothing?

Sucker punch the Galaxy by striking the Citadel and shutting down the relays to only them. Then, annihilate every planet with life at a certain stage (space flight). Make one Reaper out of the most "fit" species around. Leave husks to die afterward. Close Citadel Relay.

[dreman9999]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You do understand the modus operandi that we do know about the reaper is near nothing?

Sucker punch the Galaxy by striking the Citadel and shutting down the relays to only them. Then, annihilate every planet with life at a certain stage (space flight). Make one Reaper out of the most "fit" species around. Leave husks to die afterward. Close Citadel Relay.

And yet that does not answer the question to why they do it....Which is way we know near nothing about them. Nothing he catalsyt state conter what has been stated to how they do thing. It just adds the "why" to what they do.

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

To be completely honest Dremenn, I often have an extremely difficult time trying to discern what you are saying because of your spelling and grammar - so I apologise if I am misinterpreting you - but this all seems to be extremely misguided.

I'm going to entirely leave aside the fact that you seem to have arbitrarily removed the Catalyst from the equation entirely (despite the fact that he explains at length how the Crucible is the answer to his problem, and exhibits, should your refuse his offer, that he can indeed switch it off at will), and again move straight to your muddled notion of 'sacrifice'...

There is a very distinct difference between sacrificing yourself and your own beliefs and throwing someone else into the line of fire and betraying what they believe. One is noble, one is giving of oneself; the other is a shameful dispersal of retribution that undermines everything that a tale of warfare and sacrifice is meant to embody.

Simply put:

You cannot fight against the use of genocide by using genocide.

You cannot fight against oppression and domination by using oppression domination.

You cannot fight for diversity and unity by obliterating those very traits from the universe.

And you most certainly cannot inflict such horrors upon your own people - at the request of your enemy, to answer his ideology - and still call that a sacrifice.

That is - at best - compromise. But what you are compromising are the fundamental human rights of your fellow citizenry - something that should not be yours to offer.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two notions of 'sacrifice' - genuine sacrifice and the grotesque appeasement of an intolerant monster - is a little disheartening, and is probably at the root of why you and I shall never understand each other's perspective.

Speaking of which: you appear to now be trying to suggest that because I refuse (indeed, literally 'Refuse') to see acquiescence to the ideology and tactics of the enemy, to inflict his horrors on my own people in order to win, that I am somehow nihilistic?

That is... a stretch. To put it mildly.

Nihilism would be not being bothered by that sad truth. It would be happily agreeing that the only way to win is to not bother with all those pathetic beliefs in the sanctity of life and autonomy and unity, because ultimately they get in the way of victory - of, to use your thoroughly depressing words, 'doing what needs to be done'.

If such greatful disregard for the rights of all life are so easy to disregard, and really can numb you to the ghastly message at the heart of this conclusion, then you are welcome to it. Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for, and such a message has no place in the narrative I had thought (until that ending) that I was playing.

Feel free to call me 'naive' and perched on the 'moral high ground' all you want, I would rather embrace such names than the boring, self-immolating cynicism of which you speak.

the crucible being the anwser to his problem does not mean he controls it. If that was the case , he would just force synthesis on his own no matter what you feel on the issue. The fact that it needs you to do it makes it clear it has no control over what the crucible does. Added the fact that what it does is effected by how damaged it if make it clear it has no control over what it does as well.

We have 4 versions of the destroy ending and 3 for control for a reason.

Added the fact you stating" Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for" pretty much means you trurly want to the game to end in line with your morals. You do want to end this on the moral high road. You really can'tdeniey that.
And it not a case of self -immolating cynicism. It 's the truth. I'm not critizing you because you want to do things based on your moraly gratifying way. I'm only critizing the fact that you feel that you should alway be able to. Life is not like that.
As much as you may want to, you have to come to terms with the fact that you can't . Trying to devalue the themes of the ending is not going to change that. This is the concept of moral conflict. Bring you to an situation you don't like or in conflict with seeing what you would do.
ME is a game of hypatheticals...A" if this happen and you could only do these things...what would you do?"

I get you don't like the choiced in the end....But you're not get ting is the point is not for you to like the choices in the end. It's to see and what you see your reaction are and reflect on it. Out of that you get your meaning out of this game.

In a rpg we never pick the choice we have on had,we only react to them. Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

* sigh *

I think we might well be at the end of the road for this conversation, Dreman, because I can't keep typing the same statements and hoping that you'll finally see where I'm coming from. It is starting to feel like an exercise in futility, and is swiftly becoming tedious.

But for one last time:

You keep (rather condescendingly) trying to put this in some category where I am throwing a tantrum because I can't get the ending that I want...

Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

Firstly, there is no need to get petty.  But secondly, this is not, and has never been, the case - and you continually attempting to degrade it to such a fiction is either a sign of desperation, or evidence that you are not actually reading what I am saying.

If all I wanted was a happy ending, one where I personally wasn't compromised at all, I could pick High EMS Destroy, believe that the Geth and EDI weren't destroyed (because maybe the Catalyst was lying after all; Bioware cowardly never did show any of them actually die), and imagine myself off into a blissful conclusion with little blue babies and rainbows and whatever else it is you imagine would make me happy...

But that is not - and has never been - my issue. This is not about me 'liking' the end choice; there have been many interesting, multifaceted decisions throughout these games that I have not 'liked', but I appreciated for their depth and ambiguity, and was intrigued by the responsibility of making them.

This, however, is utterly unlike those decisions. This is an arbitrary celebration of complete moral relativity. The only way to 'win' is to utterly abandon at least one fundamental human right - the game is making a clear statement that this is the only way that peace can be achieved. Some basic ethic has to be trashed in order for people to get along: which do you prefer to stomp on? And that is a vulgar, cynical, and wholly irresponsible message for any fiction to perpetuate.

What I am saying is that it is a fundamental, and unavoidable lie to say that you are fighting to save the universe from genocide when you yourself decide to use genocide; that you can fight for autonomy by stripping the galaxy of its very self-governance; or that you can believe in the unity of disparate races if it is only achieved by selfishly wiping such distinction away.

These endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for.

...And you keep speaking of these 'hypotheticals' as interesting, or revealing - I really do not see how they are in any way. Truly: what does it reveal about you as a person - or we as a species - that you would rather exterminate a race rather than eugenically mutate everyone? What does it prove if you feel more comfortable arrogantly violating people's DNA than becoming a totalitarian overlord? What does that actually mean, in any context?

It's like one of those hypotheticals where people sit around arguing about what you would choose if you had to be either blind or deaf... It's patently idiotic - except here, you are talking about the worst crimes that can be visited upon sentient beings, and it is the figurehead of the story who is weighing it up, a character who was meant to be a beacon of hope for these broken disparate souls...

It belittles the entire discussion.

And furthermore: what does any of this ultimately mean if the game itself goes out of its way to reassure you - like you are a child - that there is no need to worry, that everyone is happy and that nothing is wrong... Shhhh... The monsters have gone away now. And even though you did exactly what they asked of you - for exactly the reasons they wanted you to - you're not anything like them at all... No, you're not like them, because... well, you know... you're just not.

So good luck, Dreman – and I mean that sincerely. I am glad that you enjoyed your vision of the game, but it is most certainly not for me. To me what you are advocating is nihilistic, dull, and hopeless. It is literally without hope. And I have no interest in embracing such a hollow, arbitrary message.

Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:36 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Drayfish vs. dreman9999 - The Continuing Saga

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

To be completely honest Dremenn, I often have an extremely difficult time trying to discern what you are saying because of your spelling and grammar - so I apologise if I am misinterpreting you - but this all seems to be extremely misguided.

I'm going to entirely leave aside the fact that you seem to have arbitrarily removed the Catalyst from the equation entirely (despite the fact that he explains at length how the Crucible is the answer to his problem, and exhibits, should your refuse his offer, that he can indeed switch it off at will), and again move straight to your muddled notion of 'sacrifice'...

There is a very distinct difference between sacrificing yourself and your own beliefs and throwing someone else into the line of fire and betraying what they believe. One is noble, one is giving of oneself; the other is a shameful dispersal of retribution that undermines everything that a tale of warfare and sacrifice is meant to embody.

Simply put:

You cannot fight against the use of genocide by using genocide.

You cannot fight against oppression and domination by using oppression domination.

You cannot fight for diversity and unity by obliterating those very traits from the universe.

And you most certainly cannot inflict such horrors upon your own people - at the request of your enemy, to answer his ideology - and still call that a sacrifice.

That is - at best - compromise. But what you are compromising are the fundamental human rights of your fellow citizenry - something that should not be yours to offer.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two notions of 'sacrifice' - genuine sacrifice and the grotesque appeasement of an intolerant monster - is a little disheartening, and is probably at the root of why you and I shall never understand each other's perspective.

Speaking of which: you appear to now be trying to suggest that because I refuse (indeed, literally 'Refuse') to see acquiescence to the ideology and tactics of the enemy, to inflict his horrors on my own people in order to win, that I am somehow nihilistic?

That is... a stretch. To put it mildly.

Nihilism would be not being bothered by that sad truth. It would be happily agreeing that the only way to win is to not bother with all those pathetic beliefs in the sanctity of life and autonomy and unity, because ultimately they get in the way of victory - of, to use your thoroughly depressing words, 'doing what needs to be done'.

If such greatful disregard for the rights of all life are so easy to disregard, and really can numb you to the ghastly message at the heart of this conclusion, then you are welcome to it. Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for, and such a message has no place in the narrative I had thought (until that ending) that I was playing.

Feel free to call me 'naive' and perched on the 'moral high ground' all you want, I would rather embrace such names than the boring, self-immolating cynicism of which you speak.

the crucible being the anwser to his problem does not mean he controls it. If that was the case , he would just force synthesis on his own no matter what you feel on the issue. The fact that it needs you to do it makes it clear it has no control over what the crucible does. Added the fact that what it does is effected by how damaged it if make it clear it has no control over what it does as well.

We have 4 versions of the destroy ending and 3 for control for a reason.

Added the fact you stating" Such a total betrayal of hope and life was never what my Shepard was fighting for" pretty much means you trurly want to the game to end in line with your morals. You do want to end this on the moral high road. You really can'tdeniey that.
And it not a case of self -immolating cynicism. It 's the truth. I'm not critizing you because you want to do things based on your moraly gratifying way. I'm only critizing the fact that you feel that you should alway be able to. Life is not like that.
As much as you may want to, you have to come to terms with the fact that you can't . Trying to devalue the themes of the ending is not going to change that. This is the concept of moral conflict. Bring you to an situation you don't like or in conflict with seeing what you would do.
ME is a game of hypatheticals...A" if this happen and you could only do these things...what would you do?"

I get you don't like the choiced in the end....But you're not get ting is the point is not for you to like the choices in the end. It's to see and what you see your reaction are and reflect on it. Out of that you get your meaning out of this game.

In a rpg we never pick the choice we have on had,we only react to them. Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

* sigh *

I think we might well be at the end of the road for this conversation, Dreman, because I can't keep typing the same statements and hoping that you'll finally see where I'm coming from. It is starting to feel like an exercise in futility, and is swiftly becoming tedious.

But for one last time:

You keep (rather condescendingly) trying to put this in some category where I am throwing a tantrum because I can't get the ending that I want...

Screaming that'snot far is not going t change that.

Firstly, there is no need to get petty.  But secondly, this is not, and has never been, the case - and you continually attempting to degrade it to such a fiction is either a sign of desperation, or evidence that you are not actually reading what I am saying.

If all I wanted was a happy ending, one where I personally wasn't compromised at all, I could pick High EMS Destroy, believe that the Geth and EDI weren't destroyed (because maybe the Catalyst was lying after all; Bioware cowardly never did show any of them actually die), and imagine myself off into a blissful conclusion with little blue babies and rainbows and whatever else it is you imagine would make me happy...

But that is not - and has never been - my issue. This is not about me 'liking' the end choice; there have been many interesting, multifaceted decisions throughout these games that I have not 'liked', but I appreciated for their depth and ambiguity, and was intrigued by the responsibility of making them.

This, however, is utterly unlike those decisions. This is an arbitrary celebration of complete moral relativity. The only way to 'win' is to utterly abandon at least one fundamental human right - the game is making a clear statement that this is the only way that peace can be achieved. Some basic ethic has to be trashed in order for people to get along: which do you prefer to stomp on? And that is a vulgar, cynical, and wholly irresponsible message for any fiction to perpetuate.

What I am saying is that it is a fundamental, and unavoidable lie to say that you are fighting to save the universe from genocide when you yourself decide to use genocide; that you can fight for autonomy by stripping the galaxy of its very self-governance; or that you can believe in the unity of disparate races if it is only achieved by selfishly wiping such distinction away.

These endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for.

...And you keep speaking of these 'hypotheticals' as interesting, or revealing - I really do not see how they are in any way. Truly: what does it reveal about you as a person - or we as a species - that you would rather exterminate a race rather than eugenically mutate everyone? What does it prove if you feel more comfortable arrogantly violating people's DNA than becoming a totalitarian overlord? What does that actually mean, in any context?

It's like one of those hypotheticals where people sit around arguing about what you would choose if you had to be either blind or deaf... It's patently idiotic - except here, you are talking about the worst crimes that can be visited upon sentient beings, and it is the figurehead of the story who is weighing it up, a character who was meant to be a beacon of hope for these broken disparate souls...

It belittles the entire discussion.

And furthermore: what does any of this ultimately mean if the game itself goes out of its way to reassure you - like a child - that there is no need to worry, that everyone is happy and that nothing is wrong... Shhhh... The monsters have gone away now. And even though you did exactly what they asked of you - for exactly the reasons they wanted you to - you're not anything like them at all... No, you're not like them, because... well, you know... you're just not.

So good luck, Dreman – and I mean that sincerely. I am glad that you enjoyed your vision of the game, but it is most certainly not for me. To me what you are advocating is nihilistic, dull, and hopeless. It is literally without hope. And I have no interest in embracing such a hollow, arbitrary message.

 I learn not to use the lable"HAPPY ENDING" with you guys. Not once in this converstion have I mentioned it. I clearly stated"Stay on the moral high ground".

I did not say you wanted rainbows and cups ending. I'm saying you want to stay morally just as you defeat the reapers.
Big difference.
You don't want to do anything questionable to stop the reapers that goes out of  line with your morals...That is what moral high ground means.

The fact that you called the ending "utterly abandon at least one fundamental human right " clear means you want to ending things on the moral high ground.

If you say the "endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for" then you missed it point.

Their never was any solid absolute way  you had to stop the reapers. The game never stated you had to keep to your morals or one moral way to defeat them.

It not a case that the endings make hypocrites and frauds both of Shepard, and everything her galactic alliance was fighting for.....It the fact you found out you could not say on the same moral ground you want to save the galexy.

You ask what you willing to sacrifice and do to stop the reapers, your and your Shepard's moral is on that chopping block.
If you upset that you have tocomprimise you morals....Guess what? That's war and life. This is the questions of the extremes of life and life does not bend to you.

But I guess you don't understand what I mean by staying to you moral ground. That does not mean happy ending..
Look up the fate of Paul Atreides from Dune an you'll see what I mean by the faults for trying to stay on the moral high ground. That does not mean "Happy ending".

Saying that you can't take the fact that you have to make these choice missed out the fact that this is a game of hypathetical. If it make you uneasy then it's doing it 'sjob. The point is to make you uneasy.
How can it not be a game of Hypatheticals? It's asking you what you would do in the situations of the extreme if the only way to solve it is to do the extreme. These are event you will never face the like in reality. Thati s the defination of hypathetical.

And the consept of this  is that you have to get the meaning out of this,
Yes, you have to get the meaning out of it. It is an interactive peice.

I understand it is extreme, but that is the point. You too busy asking why you being asked this extrem question then simply asking it.

It does not mean life is about doing war crimes.It's not about "Shhhh... The monsters have gone away now. "
This question is about what you would do in this extreme situation and why.

You don't choose what you face in life, just how you react...This has been stated form day one of this series. And out of what you can do you do he best you can do even if you don't like what you have to do.

You get your meaning out of these questions. And you just don't get that.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:25 .