985 réponses à ce sujet

[Necrotron]

Vigilant111 wrote...

The reapers are not Na'vi, and trust must be earned

Isn't it too good to be true that the invincible foe turned out to be benevolent?

Apparently not if you're one of the thousands who embraced the ending sequence of the game, and blindly trusted the reapers/catalyst with your life.

Modifié par Bathaius, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:38 .

[galland]

Fandango9641 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Drayfish vs. dreman9999 - The Continuing Saga

Drayfish vs. dreman9999 - no contest.

Perhaps a new thread?One on One??

[FOX216BC]

Catalyst has free will(at some point) otherwise how could he betray his own creators.
The Reapers are tools created for destruction(harvest,call it what you will the results are the same, many innocents are turned into Reaper form and husks against their will).
Innocent or not they both were a mistake.

Spend three games fighting the Reapers and now i have to see them as innocent beings.
You can call me many things but don't call me a idot by making statements like this.

Modifié par FOX216BC, 26 octobre 2012 - 11:05 .

[galland]

galland wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Drayfish vs. dreman9999 - The Continuing Saga

Drayfish vs. dreman9999 - no contest.

Perhaps a new thread?One on One??

Further thought...........dreman9999 v blueprotoss      mano a mano    drayfish to referee!
Good clean fight now boys.

[Ultranovae]

Someone here mentioned how even killing a single reaper is genocide. That is in fact true. And though the civilizations from which every reaper is created still exists in a twisted form, they are all in fact alive, under control or not. They form a single independent being. They are a new independent entity formed from the collective intelligence, and matter of the civilization they were created from. They are like legion in a species wide scale. There is something redeemable about every living being, whether you decide to give them a chance to redemption through synthesis or control, or decide to destroy them, it is a choice that's left to you.

[Jackal13th]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

They still need to answer for crimes. Given what they have racked up, destruction is the only way.

Obeying, taking orders, and being manipulated has never been an excuse.

It would depend on who or what is  manipulating them like Matriarch  Benezia in mass effect 1
her last words to Liara was how she fought and tried too dtop her body from killing  .

Modifié par Jackal13th, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:30 .

[wright1978]

imo no different to someone creating a new breed of dog and training them into a pack of vicious beasts that kill on command. Sure putting them down is technically genocide as you are eradicating a species but they are a species that needs eradicating.

[Jackal13th]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

They still need to answer for crimes. Given what they have racked up, destruction is the only way.

Obeying, taking orders, and being manipulated has never been an excuse.

Is it a crime to be forced to kill against your will?

If they are a puppet, how can it be against their will?

It is just like   Matriarch  Benezia in mass effect 1
She was killing but she fought to get out of it .

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

* 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.

I rarely say this, but I genuinely am tired of this conversation - it is going nowhere.

But seeing as how you've still not answered my question (What does any of this arbitrary hypothetical nonsense actually say about human sacrifice and struggle beyond 'Which atrocity is less objectionable?') I will pose the question another way - in a way I have asked elsewhere and never received a response:


How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?


Because that is the reality of this narrative: the only Shepards that feel bad about the conclusions are those that believe in the morals they have to betray. Psycho Shepard McBastardington gets to feel great, gets to be hailed as a hero, and feels no regrets about the tragedy he has unleashed upon his own allies. He can wipe out an entire race because they were in his way; agree that it is impossible for different cultures to get along in the first place; and would have loved to have become a God so he could lord it over the universe and punish anyone who pissed him off.

And despite the fact that he feels all this, the game directly calls him a hero, declares him the beacon for all humanity, and rewards him for thinking in such a manner.  The game is ultimately proves that the real hero of the Mass Effect universe would not waste time with the weakness of having any morality at all, because such concern for others just gets in the way of (and again I use your horrifyingly sad words) 'doing what needs to be done'...

That's not insightful in any way.

That reveals nothing about the human condition except that caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

Again, Dremenn, if that is the kind of text you would like to celebrate, fine - I find such a message disgusting, and want nothing to do with a narrative that would happily endorse it under the misguided belief that such an asinine premise was 'deep'.

Good luck to you. As I said before, you are welcome to this hopeless nihilistic vision – but it's not for me.  

Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:35 .

[Someone With Mass]

So what if the Reapers were enslaved and/or controlled? It sure as hell doesn't justify anything they have done.

You know which other "race" was also manipulated from the very moment they were created from a mix of other races? The Uruk-hai form Lord of the Rings.

I guess the humans should just have let those ugly things have their way with them, since killing them would apparently be so wrong by the logic some people in here are arguing by.

Oh and there is an ending that's suitable for you people: Refuse.

There. Now your "innocent" (one of the dumbest and pointless arguments I've seen coming out of this forum, by the way) Reapers won't have to be killed by your actions.

[Xilizhra]

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.

Regarding the second two points, what I'm fighting for is to stop the harvest. Anything that might come of that is secondary to the prospect of the obliteration of all advanced life, and preventing that from happening.

How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?

But an amoral genocidal totalitarian nutjob can be satisfied by an ending in every single Bioware game I've played so far. ME1: Kill the Council, take over. DAO: Kill the Archdemon, kill both Alistair and Loghain and then become king. ME2: Give the Collector base to TIM for human dominance. DA2: Side with the templars.
Why are you concerned with how these people feel? I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to their experience.

That reveals nothing about the human condition except that caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

I... can't quite agree with this. All of the endings violate different rights, so it's not a matter of not caring, it's just about choosing the most important ones.

I guess the humans should just have let those ugly things have their way
with them, since killing them would apparently be so wrong by the logic
some people in here are arguing by.

If there was a way to save and rehabilitate them, killing them would be wrong, yes.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:34 .

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?

But an amoral genocidal totalitarian nutjob can be satisfied by an ending in every single Bioware game I've played so far. ME1: Kill the Council, take over. DAO: Kill the Archdemon, kill both Alistair and Loghain and then become king. ME2: Give the Collector base to TIM for human dominance. DA2: Side with the templars.
Why are you concerned with how these people feel? I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to their experience.

Except that now they are apparently the only options, and the only world views that get validated.

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?

But an amoral genocidal totalitarian nutjob can be satisfied by an ending in every single Bioware game I've played so far. ME1: Kill the Council, take over. DAO: Kill the Archdemon, kill both Alistair and Loghain and then become king. ME2: Give the Collector base to TIM for human dominance. DA2: Side with the templars.
Why are you concerned with how these people feel? I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to their experience.

Except that now they are apparently the only options, and the only world views that get validated.

So what do you want me to do? Send millions more to die in a hypothetical conventional victory that would, if successful, destroy everything that the Reapers could have been or could be? All I've wanted from this is to save lives.

[Massa FX]

I don't care what the catalyst says. I don't care what Bioware now wants us to believe. My Shepard's know their enemy.

Reapers are not the good guys.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

How does this ending speak about 'compromising morality' when an amoral genocidal totalitarian nut-job could run through the conclusion of this narrative, happily agree with the Catalyst's racist notion and his three 'solutions', and find his whole intolerant world view celebrated as the universe was irreversibly altered?

But an amoral genocidal totalitarian nutjob can be satisfied by an ending in every single Bioware game I've played so far. ME1: Kill the Council, take over. DAO: Kill the Archdemon, kill both Alistair and Loghain and then become king. ME2: Give the Collector base to TIM for human dominance. DA2: Side with the templars.
Why are you concerned with how these people feel? I'm not quite sure how it's relevant to their experience.

Except that now they are apparently the only options, and the only world views that get validated.

So what do you want me to do? Send millions more to die in a hypothetical conventional victory that would, if successful, destroy everything that the Reapers could have been or could be? All I've wanted from this is to save lives.

I don't want you to do anything at all.  Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

[Alienmorph]

Even if it's true and they are truly innocent... what's the big deal about it? If your house burns don't you try to exinguish the fire, even if you know that it has no malice against you?

Most of the monsters created by the Reaper were also innoncent civilians once, does that mean that Shepard should let them kill him?

I'm definately not going to agree with the initial statement, but assuming it's true... what changes? After millions, if not billions, of years of genocides the best thing you can do for the people harvested to make the reapers is putting them out of their misery. Controlling them means eliminate whathever is left of their free will and Sinthesys makes their suffering literally eternal, stripping also it of its original purpose (ignoring how twisted it was that too in the first place).

Modifié par Alienmorph, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:49 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

Less courage?  Because you agreed to do what they asked you to?

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

Less courage?  Because you agreed to do what they asked you to?

Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from? All we should be concerned with is what it does... and that's concerning, but better than any alternative I can see.

[GriM_AoD]

An apt quote
"You. Whatever species was harvested to make you? They're dead. They died thousands of years ago. And now, they can rest in peace."

[RKB28]

I look at some of the posts in this thread and I laugh at the prospect of some of them being actually serious in tone.

Probably played a diferent trilogy. But then again, I guess the endings change alot of people´s perception, albeit in a twisted way, so that they don´t sulk away ...

Modifié par RKB28, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

Less courage?  Because you agreed to do what they asked you to?

Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from? All we should be concerned with is what it does... and that's concerning, but better than any alternative I can see.

better then...

shepard: can you stop reaping the whole gol dang galaxy already. this is rediculous you stupid AI. use your holographic eyes, idiot, i united the geth and the quarians.
catalyst: well, i had these other really cool ideas, but ok ill do what you ask.

*galaxy saved*

[78stonewobble]

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... You're not pro euthanasia then?

[galland]

Xilizhra wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't want you to do anything at all. Please understand: I am in no way criticising you - every Shepard that believed in hope, or that was fighting for the rights of their fellow civilisations to live, got utterly screwed.

What I am questioning is the narrative structure of the game and the ugly moral quandry that was arbitrarilly loaded into its conclusion by the writers.

Maybe I was screwed, but why should that be faced with less courage than the implacable menace of the Reapers themselves?

Less courage?  Because you agreed to do what they asked you to?

Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from? All we should be concerned with is what it does... and that's concerning, but better than any alternative I can see.

"Why does it matter? What does it matter where victory comes from"
Please ask yourself that question again......ask what matters with regard to the victory you are trying to achieve;
Victory at any cost? Even at the cost of what you are trying to prevent? Even at the cost of everything you have fought  against ? Even at the cost of everything  you believe in?  Fundamentally if nothing matters...nothing matters.
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.