Ieldra2 wrote...
I would agree that they're probably gone in this case - they had not been "uploaded and conjoined" like the others - but Mordin isn't omniscient.
Modifié par Bill Casey, 27 octobre 2012 - 07:53 .
dreman9999 wrote...
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.drayfish wrote...
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?
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.
Modifié par drayfish, 27 octobre 2012 - 10:31 .
drayfish wrote...
In your own words the lesson you appear to have learned is that in war morality does not matter - that in life one should not bother believing that there is any such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'. That it is all ultimately subjective, so we need not think of genocide as a bad thing if we can excuse it away.
Guest_Fandango_*
AlanC9 wrote...
Fandango9641 wrote...
Making a serious decision usually necessitates having some idea what you are doing Alan. Really, if you can't do a better job of explaining away the peculiar conviction you have in the Catalysts solutions, you'd do well to wind your neck in mate!
It'd be nice to have more info, yep. But Shep doesn't. He just doesn't. So, what does he do? Complain about the unfairness of his fate? I guess he could. Then what?
And that "peculiar conviction" line makes me doubt your reading comprehension a bit. It's probabilities and game theory, not conviction. "Worth a punt" was much better.
I'm starting to think you don't have actual reasons for your decision.
Modifié par Fandango9641, 27 octobre 2012 - 12:00 .
Argolas wrote...
OperatingWookie wrote...
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Who is going to charge Shepard?
That doesn't make it right.
If I killed someone and hid the body, I am still just as horrible a person.
It doesn't matter if the choices and Shepards decision become public. No one should DARE to accuse Shepard for ending the reaper threat once and for all. I do not know how often we heard that there will be casualties and that difficult decisions have to be made when we are at war.
When Hackett sent the 2nd fleet to cover the retreat of the others, did he murder the crews?
Wayning_Star wrote...
Argolas wrote...
OperatingWookie wrote...
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Who is going to charge Shepard?
That doesn't make it right.
If I killed someone and hid the body, I am still just as horrible a person.
It doesn't matter if the choices and Shepards decision become public. No one should DARE to accuse Shepard for ending the reaper threat once and for all. I do not know how often we heard that there will be casualties and that difficult decisions have to be made when we are at war.
When Hackett sent the 2nd fleet to cover the retreat of the others, did he murder the crews?
"" You're playing with things you don't understand. With power you shouldn't be able to use."" ?!?
in civlilian or military court? Shep did get busted for that stunt with the asteroid..
(after reading your links, I'm just glad there is no bias..lol )
Samtheman63 wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
No
Modifié par Argolas, 27 octobre 2012 - 12:34 .
Argolas wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
Argolas wrote...
OperatingWookie wrote...
sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Who is going to charge Shepard?
That doesn't make it right.
If I killed someone and hid the body, I am still just as horrible a person.
It doesn't matter if the choices and Shepards decision become public. No one should DARE to accuse Shepard for ending the reaper threat once and for all. I do not know how often we heard that there will be casualties and that difficult decisions have to be made when we are at war.
When Hackett sent the 2nd fleet to cover the retreat of the others, did he murder the crews?
"" You're playing with things you don't understand. With power you shouldn't be able to use."" ?!?
in civlilian or military court? Shep did get busted for that stunt with the asteroid..
(after reading your links, I'm just glad there is no bias..lol )
Are you saying I play with things I don't understand if I pick Destroy? There's no playing about this.
Using the crucible to destroy the reapers is not Shepard's decision, it is his duty. He came to do this in the name of the Alliance and its galactic allies. It was the purpose of this whole damn attack!
Then, Shepard got "busted" for his/her deeds in "Arrival"? When? Shepard was only asked not to leave a nice flat on earth and put under surveillance. This was rather a means of protection until further notice. A war criminal who murdered 300,000 civilians would not get a nice flat and warm food so he could become "soft around the edges".
Once again, who would accuse Shepard? Who would dare to do this after experiencing the reapers? You think somebody would stand up and say "But you could have tried to control or appease the reapers!". Everyone except the indoctrinated always wanted to destroy them and nothing else.
Guest_Fandango_*
Modifié par Fandango9641, 27 octobre 2012 - 01:58 .
Wayning_Star wrote...
I thought you mentioned that to another poster for hinting at selecting synthesis?
Wayning_Star wrote...
Shepard would accuse Shepard.
Wayning_Star wrote...
The "purpose" of the whole damn attack were to creat a barrier to the chaos. The whole decision making process revolves around te Leviathan lacky catalyst. We cannot destroy them, thats the catch 22 of the story. They'll be back, and you don't even HAVE to trust the catalyst, it's organic(human) nature to take the shortest route to success. Hense the mars discovery..first mistake? Then greeding up on reaper tech..till they show up all up in our face over 'who came first, the chicken or the egg'. But really, they're just prisoners of war, victims of circumstances beyond their control, anyones control, even the catalyst cannot control "life". Its what makes the IT crowd so crazy, they wish to wisk the control out of the catlalysts' clutches..lol It cannot be done, so they invent/circumvent reality, for indoctrination station.
Our only choice is to either join them of just go away. We wouldn't have it any other way..apparently.
(nice flats notwithstanding.. of course, it's not who you are, so much, as who you know, eh?)
Modifié par Argolas, 27 octobre 2012 - 02:46 .
Yes, but it did start out as one AI.Yate wrote...
I thought the Catalyst was the combined intelligence of the Reapers...
I anwered you question. If you don't see that the message you get out it is up to you then in a game that allows you to play and react to it's events how you want then thats your problem.drayfish wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
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.drayfish wrote...
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?
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.
I give up. I really can't be bothered anymore.
From what little I understood of this response (and I'm sorry to say it was barely any of it: what does 'no presser on hamd' mean?), there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion. You've still not answered my questions - instead talking in vagaries about what meaning each person individually brings to the text by projecting their own headcanon onto it. And frankly, I'm just thankful I don't have to share your vision, because I find it entirely depressing.
As I have said several times now, I am happy for you that you enjoy this conclusion, Dreman - I really am. But all of the things that you want to celebrate - your six endings that all result in complete ethical compromise and that betray fundamental human rights in order to arbitrarily survive - all sound like dreary meaningless slush to me.
Again: I'm glad you find it intellectually stimulating; I just personally can't think of anything worse than ending a sweeping heroic saga that celebrated inclusivity and hope by betraying those ideals with a love note to intolerant, existential nihilism.
I don't consider becoming everything the Reapers stood for in order to stop them a victory - and any text that trivialises and celebrates horrors like genocide, eugenics and totalitarianism as 'doing what needs to be done' is shameful.
In your own words the lesson you appear to have learned is that in war morality does not matter - that in life one should not bother believing that there is any such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'. That it is all ultimately subjective, so we need not think of genocide as a bad thing if we can excuse it away.
Firstly, the fact that you can believe such a thing is terrifying; but secondly, if everything is relative, if it's all up to the player to interpret whether the ending is happy or sad, good or bad, ingenious or the most infantile nonsense ever witlessly strung together, then you cannot be bothered by people hating it. They have simply chosen to apply their morals to the conclusion and found it disgusting - which is frankly none of your business, and does not require your criticism. I am one of those people, and am happy to say I do not embrace your willing ethical apathy.
Either way it means that there literally is nothing left for either of us to say to one another.
Goodbye Dremann - have fun with your game.
Modifié par dreman9999, 27 octobre 2012 - 02:57 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Your not getting that in this game perspective and meaning is relitive. It won't be the same from player to player.
Modifié par Isichar, 27 octobre 2012 - 03:18 .
How? You are just looking at the ending in just one perspective.Isichar wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Your not getting that in this game perspective and meaning is relitive. It won't be the same from player to player.
Pretty sure that applys to... well just about every form of entertainment in life.
I admit I find it a bit funny that you would play the "perspective card".
I'm not surprized you don't get it.Fixers0 wrote...
lol, no.
Modifié par ghost9191, 27 octobre 2012 - 04:04 .
Samtheman63 wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
No
Modifié par Volc19, 27 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .
dreman9999 wrote...
How? You are just looking at the ending in just one perspective.Isichar wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Your not getting that in this game perspective and meaning is relitive. It won't be the same from player to player.
Pretty sure that applys to... well just about every form of entertainment in life.
I admit I find it a bit funny that you would play the "perspective card".
True, other medium can be seen in different perspectives, but the mean of said median usally is linear and does not change.
Lofr will alway be a story about the very small a weak over coming odds and defeating the over whelming strong.
Ender's Game will alway bea story about the results of lack of understanding and the ruthlesness of understanding.
The auther definedthem.
ME is a game where the player chooses the direction of the plot. Theplayer decides what them meaning is to the actions on hand.
It made to be looked atwith multiple perspective and get more perspectives out of it.
You are just looking at it in just one.
Volc19 wrote...
Samtheman63 wrote...
Wayning_Star wrote...
IF the reaperships 'die'/" are destroyed", then the catalyst is guilty of mass genocide. Along with anyone responsible for the destroy choice. Possible even Shepard.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
No
So, choosing to eliminate an entire race... isn't genocide?
You know, explaination would be nice. You only ever seem to post the dictionary definition of genocide whenever it comes up. At this point, I can interpret your comment several ways. Either you don't see the Reapers as a species, or you don't think picking Destroy makes the deaths 'deliberate.'
On you first statement...Prove it.Isichar wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
How? You are just looking at the ending in just one perspective.Isichar wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Your not getting that in this game perspective and meaning is relitive. It won't be the same from player to player.
Pretty sure that applys to... well just about every form of entertainment in life.
I admit I find it a bit funny that you would play the "perspective card".
True, other medium can be seen in different perspectives, but the mean of said median usally is linear and does not change.
Lofr will alway be a story about the very small a weak over coming odds and defeating the over whelming strong.
Ender's Game will alway bea story about the results of lack of understanding and the ruthlesness of understanding.
The auther definedthem.
ME is a game where the player chooses the direction of the plot. Theplayer decides what them meaning is to the actions on hand.
It made to be looked atwith multiple perspective and get more perspectives out of it.
You are just looking at it in just one.
Says the guy who claims the only reason people don't like the ending is because "they didn't think about it enough".
Heres the thing with the ending. It was made from 2 writers with no input from the rest of the team. Unlike everything else in the entire series. It does not take into account many different perspectives because many of the perspectives that went into the rest of the series was absent in that one part. People don't understand that this does not mean that Casey or Mac are bad writers, but just that they needed the same perspective that went into the rest of the series. Supporting those different perspectives is what made the series so strong, and the ending lacked that, adding lots of options does not fix automatically that.
I can step back and admit that any perspective has merit, but just because I accept that people believe something is good does not make it good to me, just like how people thinking its bad does not make it bad to you, I have spent just as much time as you have Dre thinking about the ending, I have gone out of my way and spent god knows how many hours reading pro-ender threads and trying to understand the different reasons people like it. I no longer think the ending is strictly "good" or "bad" anymore since simply put I have seen too many perspectives that mine no longer seems relevant on the issue. I still dont like it, and thats not going to change, but I understand what the creators were going for.
Honestly Dre I think I understand your perspective a hell of a lot more then you understand ours.
Modifié par dreman9999, 27 octobre 2012 - 05:06 .
Retour en haut
