985 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Of course I trust the Catalyst. I know an exposition dump when I see one.

. And there is the source of all our problems. Is the catalyst trustworthy.  I say no, emphatically

[jtav]

Steelcan wrote...

jtav wrote...

I object to the idea that we have to "put them down" when there are other options for safeguarding other species.

. And by other species I assume you mean the geth.  But with destroy you guarantee the freedom of the most amount of people.  Control puts all races subservient to Shepalyst, Synthesis, I'm not going into that right now.

I meant this cycle collectively. I will not kill allies or those responsible for their actions unless there is no other option to end the war. The bolded sentence is irrelevent.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

jtav wrote...

I object to the idea that we have to "put them down" when there are other options for safeguarding other species.

. And by other species I assume you mean the geth.  But with destroy you guarantee the freedom of the most amount of people.  Control puts all races subservient to Shepalyst, Synthesis, I'm not going into that right now.

I meant this cycle collectively. I will not kill allies or those responsible for their actions unless there is no other option to end the war. The bolded sentence is irrelevent.

. I guess this come down to me not seeing synthesis or control as winning the war, more a compromise or acknowledgment that the Catalyst is right.  

[78stonewobble]

Personally I don't find that much of what the catalyst says makes any sense but I don't think that was the point for ts.



More to the point. I think our perception of our own "free will" is highly exaggerated. Our basis for any decision making is based on our subjective values, subconscious likes/dislikes or perhaps even some kind of physically built in programming (apparent as "instincts").

I think we can merely try to approach or more likely emulate real rational decisions and rarely in everyday life.

I mean... Most people have eg. a favorite colour. How many are able to make a conscious decision to start disliking that colour and loving a new one and even in that case can we be sure it's by choice and not some weird inner emotional thing.

[FOX216BC]

 YES, THEY WERE. I"LL TOAST TO THAT.

[wright1978]

FOX216BC wrote...

 YES, THEY WERE. I"LL TOAST TO THAT.

What a beautiful sight. Sun, sand, beer and euthanised reaper. Can't get much better than that. 

Modifié par wright1978, 26 octobre 2012 - 06:31 .

[StarcloudSWG]

The Reapers are not innocent. They're mind-controlled technozombies that are given the illusion of free-willed independence.

As such, their guilt or innocence does not matter. What matters is eliminating them and the Catalyst so that the horrors they perpetrate STOP FOREVER.

[AlanC9]

dreman9999 wrote...
If it had a warm up time then refuse would have us winning clearly.
If the crucible only works with control and synthesis then that mean using it is the correct choice any way.

Sure. I'm not saying that it actually does that, since we see that it does not (pre-EC if you waited to use the Crucible  the Reapers just blew it up, but AFAIK there's no timer anymore). But if you don't believe the Catalyst at all, why do you believe that shooting the tube leads to good results? Why isn't he lying about that too?

I don't think we disagree on anything here.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...
To this point, in this very thread, people have continued to excuse their trust in those final solutions by saying ‘we are dead anyway’ or ‘it was worth a try’. Well no; I say that the Catalyst has more reason to misrepresent the solutions made possible by its construction than not. 

How does your logic actually go? If the Catalyst's lying he's doing a terrible job of it. What's he trying to accomplish?

[Xamufam]

The reapers are husks that the catalyst controls

[ghost9191]

the reapers are what they are. and from legions chat and both sovereign and harbinger , it would seem like they want this. they are each a nation, many minds. seems that those minds like the idea of the whole harvest thing. and if they are just "indoctrinated" which machine and all so lawl to that. than they are still a threat . same as husks and such

they are a threat, there is no gurantee that they would stop if you freed them. they could , without having the catalyst control them. go all the way , rather than every 50k year they could just wipe out all life. they could see they are more advanced and make pppl worship them . who knows. you don't know what the reapers would do .

so they may not deserve it . or they may . we don't really know if they were forced or not. they were built for it, may have just been programmed, doubt that but still. but they are a threat to ppl , too many unknowns to let them live

those mentally ill ppl that do bad things still get locked up btw;. only difference is i doubt anyone could control the reapers if you pick synthesis to free them. no one would be in control of them. and they could easily take on the forces. considering most were wiped out/. so that just brings me back to the whole they are a threat. if they do choose to do the whole harvest thing then you blow the chance you have to stop them

if not than well they will be honored in teh coming empire. that was joke , doubt anyone would honor a bunch of genocidal machines

[ghost9191]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
To this point, in this very thread, people have continued to excuse their trust in those final solutions by saying ‘we are dead anyway’ or ‘it was worth a try’. Well no; I say that the Catalyst has more reason to misrepresent the solutions made possible by its construction than not. 

How does your logic actually go? If the Catalyst's lying he's doing a terrible job of it. What's he trying to accomplish?

Come on Alan, why would the Catalyst be forthright about a solution that destroys the Reapers? Indeed, what is it about the in game presentation of the Reapers that would lead anyone to trust them at so crucial a time?

bioware was just trying to make them seem more sympathetic , and probably what they tried to do with the catalyst

evidence from 3 games and 2 conversations with reapers ( the destroyer is iffy , it was just a pawn though ) and from most of legions conversation says otherwise. they're a threat

i say kill them all if they are innocent then god can sort that sh*t out

Reference:innocent:


oh and @dreman

i don't think it was the catalyst that brought shep up. if it was then why would it ask what are you doing here or whatever in low ems ending

Modifié par ghost9191, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Alienboy411676]

 I think this entire thread is completely irrelevant.   

There is no LIVING organic race stored inside a Reaper.  

Remember the "human" Reaper the Collectors were making?  Remember watching Chambers or that colonist get melted and turned into goo?  Do you REALLY think she was still alive after that?  

NONE of the races used to create the Reapers are still alive.  The only reason a Reaper is alive is because the cybernetics and AI technology is fused with organic DNA. A Reaper may be a cyborg by definition, but it is only because of the DNA from the race it was born from.  Nothing from the race that was killed to make it is still alive.  It is like saying that a serial killer is innocent because his parents were innocent.  

There is nothing innocent about the Reapers.  The races used to create them are long dead.  Like Sheperd said about the human Reaper, they are "abominations", and need to be eliminated.  

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Come on Alan, why would the Catalyst be forthright about a solution that destroys the Reapers? Indeed, what is it about the in game presentation of the Reapers that would lead anyone to trust them at so crucial a time?

Because he's going to win anyway. Again, what's he trying to accomplish by lying? Why even talk to Shepard?

And let's assume he is lying; the Crucible immediately huskifies everyone or something like that. Picking Refuse lets Shepard give a nice speech. Pciking the other three options doesn't. Then we all lose anyway. What's the difference?

Edit: I'm assuming you're backing Refuse as being the rational choice here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 octobre 2012 - 07:55 .

[dreman9999]

ghost9191 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
To this point, in this very thread, people have continued to excuse their trust in those final solutions by saying ‘we are dead anyway’ or ‘it was worth a try’. Well no; I say that the Catalyst has more reason to misrepresent the solutions made possible by its construction than not. 

How does your logic actually go? If the Catalyst's lying he's doing a terrible job of it. What's he trying to accomplish?

Come on Alan, why would the Catalyst be forthright about a solution that destroys the Reapers? Indeed, what is it about the in game presentation of the Reapers that would lead anyone to trust them at so crucial a time?

bioware was just trying to make them seem more sympathetic , and probably what they tried to do with the catalyst

evidence from 3 games and 2 conversations with reapers ( the destroyer is iffy , it was just a pawn though ) and from most of legions conversation says otherwise. they're a threat

i say kill them all if they are innocent then god can sort that sh*t out

Reference:innocent:


oh and @dreman

i don't think it was the catalyst that brought shep up. if it was then why would it ask what are you doing here or whatever in low ems ending

And even then it did not need to show up. The fact remain if he left Shepard allown, Shepard would have no way to stop the reapers.

But ether way, there is more then one way to look at the scene with the catalyst any way.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...
 Without metagaming knowledge, how is one to know for sure what the Catalyst does?

I'm not assuming that.

Why is it not more reasonable to assume that the choices presented to us are being misrepresented in a way that benefits the Reapers?

How is it more reasonable to assume you've already lost?

Let's say there's a 99% probability the catalyst is lying and the using the Crucible will fail. Picking a Crucible option only gives you a 1% chance of success, then.

OK. So that's 1% chance of success... as opposed to a 0% chance of success if you don't. It's still better to use the Crucible.

Trying something with a low probability of success rather than accepting certain defeat if he refuses to try is something that Shepard does several times in the series. There is nothing different about the final choice.

The only way you get out of this is with some fantasy of a conventional victory. Which is why Bio made conventional victory impossible.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:46 .

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

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.  

I already awnsered your question.

"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."

That's your awnser. I can't tell you what your meaning is out of the question being asked. It's for you to reflecton on. I did say you're too busy asking why you're being asked this question to understand the meaning of it. You're asked to see how you react. Any meaning is for you to get from the question.

As I said before it's not about how horrible the act you have to take to end this war, it's about how you react to the fact you have to act.
They are not saying you have to always do war crime to do what you have to do, it's just about seeing how you think and feel in the hypathetical extreme.

If you feel the universe should reflect on the fact you did horrible actions to save thegalexy, then you're missing the point that not only is this something that takes time to reflecton but the universe is not made to reward or punish your actions.
What ever you feel about what you did is something you have grade and value on your own. Hence, the nature that the choices are of what you see it is with the endings.

It not a case that it doesnot reveal nothing about the human condition or that  caring for others is dumb, and worrying about violating other people's fundamental rights are a pointless waste of time.

Heck, if you feel that you don't want to do any crimes, just pick control.

It just a an issue of asking what you would do at the extremes.  You are too busy asking why you're being asked these questions to getthe point of them.

This is extremely difficult to comprehend, and still (extraordinarily) does not answer either of the questions that I have posed to you.

If the ending is all just something that we all bring our own meanings to, if it has no message to communicate itself but rather relies wholly upon the interpretation the player projects upon it (even in spite of what the text itself is clearly stating), then we may as well plug an X-Box controller into Jackson ******'s Blue Poles and play that.

This is a narrative, Dreman. It has a context and it has a thematic core, otherwise it would be a series of unrelated, insignificant events that just happened, with no relevance to anything whatsoever.  It certainly would not warrant anyone visiting a discussion thread to dissect its meaning - you would just be happy with your own reading inside your own head and leave it at that.

So, because I am really wearied by this whole intractable discussion, here are my two questions artlessly posed once again:

1. Because you are so enamoured with the deep meaningthat the end of the game revealed to you, let me ask: What is it? What was it for you? What does knowing which ethical horror is less appealing than the others reveal to you about yourself?

2. Why does the game suggest in its final moments that the real hero of the galaxy would be a racist megalomaniac who was willing to sacrifice others to win? Why does the game only punish players who have a moral code, therefore suggesting that believing in things like freedom, autonomy, and respect for all life is a weakness?

And just for the complete opposite of fun:

3. If Bioware really were interested in exploring ethical complexities, why did they make the epilogue so deliriously, mindlessly happy, and knowingly whitewash all of the murkier ethical connotations out of the tale? How does not seeing the dead Geth, or not seeing anyone concerned about the Uber-Shepard or being mutated do anything except excuse (and therefore validate) those choices?

Modifié par drayfish, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:11 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm not dooming my cycle. I'm not sacrificing myself to end the cycle by changing everything or trying to control these monstrosities. I don't buy that restarting the cycle is inevitable. Say goodbye to your toys. If the Geth have to go, oh well, they have to go. I warned Legion "don't upload the code, Legion." Did he listen? No. If he had they would have been spared this moment. So we shoot the plasma conduit.

The reapers are innocent. Right.......

EDIT: I actually find the ending horrible. I see no reason to taint the Destroy ending except to make Synthesis and Control more "palatable" or shall we put it another way, make Destroy less palatable, otherwise everyone would have picked Destroy. That's why they tacked "destroy all synthetics on it", and that's the only reason they did it. They said there wasn't going to be a "reaper off button". If they hadn't done this Destroy would have been the reaper off button.

So genocide; OR eugenics + molecular rape; OR if you believe these are "innocent victims" eternal enslavement by an AI God who will use them to maintain order and balance according to Shepard's morals and take appropriate action as necessary (did you throw the merc out the window?).

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 26 octobre 2012 - 09:33 .

[78stonewobble]

Alienboy411676 wrote...

 I think this entire thread is completely irrelevant.   

There is no LIVING organic race stored inside a Reaper.  

Remember the "human" Reaper the Collectors were making?  Remember watching Chambers or that colonist get melted and turned into goo?  Do you REALLY think she was still alive after that?  

NONE of the races used to create the Reapers are still alive.  The only reason a Reaper is alive is because the cybernetics and AI technology is fused with organic DNA. A Reaper may be a cyborg by definition, but it is only because of the DNA from the race it was born from.  Nothing from the race that was killed to make it is still alive.  It is like saying that a serial killer is innocent because his parents were innocent.  

There is nothing innocent about the Reapers.  The races used to create them are long dead.  Like Sheperd said about the human Reaper, they are "abominations", and need to be eliminated.  

Personally I think it was implied that something or everything survives that process. Maybe even consciousness.

Becoming part of a reaper is a brain in a jar scenario. Whether it's the matrix like (oblivious) or ... "I have no mouth and i must scream". Who knows... Presumably more like the last.

[Wayning_Star]

If the contents of the reaper ships are not alive, then resurrected Shepard isn't alive either..according to some logic posted above. Once dead, that's it, as some say. The Shepard is dead, long live The Shepard...as it were. Punish the evil reaperships!! lol

(this stuff is just too alien for many to get over/into it...)

[Alienboy411676]

78stonewobble wrote...

Alienboy411676 wrote...

 I think this entire thread is completely irrelevant.   

There is no LIVING organic race stored inside a Reaper.  

Remember the "human" Reaper the Collectors were making?  Remember watching Chambers or that colonist get melted and turned into goo?  Do you REALLY think she was still alive after that?  

NONE of the races used to create the Reapers are still alive.  The only reason a Reaper is alive is because the cybernetics and AI technology is fused with organic DNA. A Reaper may be a cyborg by definition, but it is only because of the DNA from the race it was born from.  Nothing from the race that was killed to make it is still alive.  It is like saying that a serial killer is innocent because his parents were innocent.  

There is nothing innocent about the Reapers.  The races used to create them are long dead.  Like Sheperd said about the human Reaper, they are "abominations", and need to be eliminated.  

Personally I think it was implied that something or everything survives that process. Maybe even consciousness.

Becoming part of a reaper is a brain in a jar scenario. Whether it's the matrix like (oblivious) or ... "I have no mouth and i must scream". Who knows... Presumably more like the last.

I don't think it's implied at all.  If anything, what I said is most implied, because as I pointed, even Sheperd has said that those people are long dead and they can rest in peace (after destroying the Reapers).  

If it was implied, it would be horribly stupid.  How bout I go out and grind a bunch of people up into a paste, stick'em together in a machine and say "It's okay! They're CONSCIOUSNESS is still alive."  ...Yeah...that's totally believable.