drayfish wrote...
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?
Yes.It does anwser you question. ME is a games series that leaves what is done from event to event to the player. That means the player defines the meaning of what is said. ME simply gives the player info on it's points,themes , and perspective. After which it leaves it up to the player to decide what it done based on all that has been stated and why.
That means if you going to get any meaning out of anything stated in this game, you have to figure it out on your own of what the details mean.
If basicly come down to one person playing ME one way and another playing it another way or even a person playing the game with new characters and getting a new perspective on the events on hand per character they play.
That would mean the meaning of what is said can change from playthrough to playthrough.
That does not mean there is no meaning to it. That is the very nature of the concept of Hypathetical questions. Getting a new perspective.
Yes, this is a narative but this is an interactie one where you effect what happens based on your choices. Becuase of this it would not be held back by the normal restrains other forms of narrative have. You're basicly saying that you want a linear story when it's made to be able to change.
To ask this from this story which premise is that your choices effect the out come is missing the point.
1.As of my meaning out of ME ending, Being that i had 6 characters I had 6 meanings. Each different per character.I learn that the action meaning is define by the person doing said action, that the best road you think is moral may end up being the hardest road to take, that at times you have to turn away from what you want to up hold the greater good, that what you think is moraly just maybe the most horrifing thing you can possible do, that pride and rage can blind the best of people, that conflict is nature and to be a slave is a sin, and the ones who think of themselves as flawless fall the farthest when they learn the truth that they are not.
2.No that is not what the game is suggesting at all is not it at all. This is only the case if you do this with no presser on hamd. This is an extreme situation. It not say you have to do war crimes to get you way in life. If just showing you what it like to be in that extreme situation. This is the concept of moral conflict. We had this form day one.
3.As for your third question, I don't see how they made the ending mindlessly happy...Out side of synthesis which in it self is questionable from the start.
What you're missing here is that the game is not made to tell you you're right or wrong. It here to deliver the hypathetical question. It leaves the moral implications of what you done in you hands. It's up to see the action you done as right or wrong, not the game's job. All ending have issues of joy and sorrow based on the event on the game. But it leaves it up to you to see them as right or wrong. That is one of the things I mean by the meaning of the ending is up to you.
Retour en haut
One reason is because I believe in (trying) to redeem the Reapers. (That is NOT my main reason though.)
