Nerevar-as wrote...
True Art Is Angsty!!
Sigh
I felt worse listenging to the Mindoir girl in ME1, than with the dreamkid and all the rest in ME3.
DirtySHISN0 wrote...
Ticonderoga (starship troopers reference?) is on the same page as me.
dreman9999 wrote...
If the point is to bring te player to moral conflict andyou give them an easy choice to make, the point of moral conflict is lost. You don't see that?
Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:32 .
dreman9999 wrote...
@Redbelle
The issue of conflict over choice son hand was there day one and advertized from day one. It is not bad because it goes to the extreme.
Also control and destoy are not space magic. Only synthesis is.
AlanC9 wrote...
DirtySHISN0 wrote...
You can't ask people how far they are prepared to go and then fail to provide a single ethically correct ending.
You've got Refuse.
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
DirtySHISN0 wrote...
You can't ask people how far they are prepared to go and then fail to provide a single ethically correct ending.
You've got Refuse.
I have Refuse+
Refuse to play.
Redbelle wrote...
iakus wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
DirtySHISN0 wrote...
You can't ask people how far they are prepared to go and then fail to provide a single ethically correct ending.
You've got Refuse.
I have Refuse+
Refuse to play.
Oooooooo, like Tic Tak Toe in that movie war games.
Modifié par iakus, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .
The issue is that you don't have away to control them. The reaper use the davatage of ambuses and traps to control organics...Added the nature of the reapers found in ME2 point to the fact that they are control being that that are indoctinated organics made into a reapers.Redbelle wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Inheritly is. It die not get a new persona.Nerevar-as wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
More like a being with differt experiances with you as the base it's persona.Nerevar-as wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Having 2 shepards still means both Shepards are Shepards.ghost9191 wrote...
just putting this out there. but pretty sure that colonist ( f*ck if i can remember her name ) lilith i think . pretty sure she wasn't uploaded before being turned into goo . just saying
catalyst straight up says shep will die, copy will be made , and a new ai will be "born" based off it
Seen Caprica? Virtual Zoe was not Zoe, even if she had both memories and personality. Just a clone of her mind. Same for Control Shepard.
It´s still another being. Not the Shepard we´ve been following, although I consider Catalyst Shepard a living being in its own right. I didn´t choose Control because it felt like Gandalf taking the One Ring.
Also, you missing that fact here that the one ring had a will of it's own and the reaper do not. You commad them, not ithem commanding you
Ok, hold up. One of the underlying and recurring theme's throughout ME1, 2 and 3 is that you do not control the Reapers. They control you.
To expect the fanbase to accept such an about turn in ME lore in the space of ten minutes is the biggest leap of faith I've ever seen a developer take.
What were they thinking?
CH: "Now. I have the ME fans in the palm of my hand. Ready to accept whatever truth I place before them. Cause I created the Catalyst.......... And it's awesome".
Groan eminates from the closet.
CH: "Silence Weekly! Your in my world now!"
Modifié par dreman9999, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:51 .
That was Shepard. Not an A.I. Machine-God that has his/her memories.Dr_Extrem wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
1. Laws are laws.
2. Because that's most likely going to be the way he takes care of "problems" now.
3. Because it caused everyone involved a ton of problems and brought down space cthulu on top of everyone's head!
An actual argument for point 2 would be nice.
what is worse - killing or indoctrinating them (to be nice and peaceful). both options are available and both are a very inversive form of protecting the weak.
even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.
I agree. I don't know if the developers even realized what they writing themselves into when they made the ending, but the point stands that as is, the endings are tantamount to saying (though most likely not by intentional design), that the end will always justify the means. Submiting to these arbatriray choices, to me at least, is like saying that the Reapers harvests were WORTH it in most cases. No matter what you do, you throw away part of your reasons for fighting them while feeling like you've valadated their reasons for harvesting life.drayfish wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
Ethics are a set of moral rules that can't be bargained away. They're either adhered to or not. You've previously said that Shepard was justified in making a choice, which means that we players followed ethical rules when making the choice.drayfish wrote...
...
Having said that, however, and having been subjected to your cartoonish misrepresentation, I would love to hear what it is that you get out of the ending.
Truly.
In your opinion my reading of the ending is entirely lacking. That's cool. I can believe that. So what is it about this deal with the galaxy's greatest mass-murderer that reveals anything to you about the nature of humanity? Of genuine sacrifice?
It is great (and rather easy) to say that moral compromise is in the mix there, but what does it actually do? What was the point of forcing the player to confront such a circumstance, and compel them to sell out their beliefs? Again, nothing is simpler than nodding sagely, and burbling that the ending is 'deep' because it forces us to confront troubling moral quandries... But so what? What is the point of it all? What do we learn, and what do we do with that knowledge?
So far I have heard people speak of this as a test of moral relativity (you yourself claimed it was a great test of what we hold most sacred) - but aside from revealing that players can be willing to bargain away their morality to survive, or which atrocity is least appealing, I don't see what that actually says about ethics except that they are fundamentally malleable, and can be ignored if need be for the purposes of whatever 'greater good' is most pressing at any given moment.
I would (genuinely) love to hear you reveal something more than that, rather than petulently deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ...
1) If one considers the ending options as sacrifices, then the message of the ending is that sacrifices can be committed ethically.
2) If one considers the ending options as atrocities, then the message of the ending is that atrocities can be committed ethically.
3) If one considers the ending options as a mixture of sacrifices and atrocities, then the message of the ending is that there is a difference between the two that must be determined, and that atrocities or sacrifices can be committed ethically.
Just on the face of it, I would say that all three of these conclusions are true. I think pretty much everything else you've described (why each action is an atrocity, the deaths of the Geth, player feeling, etc...) is an attempt to make that truth as unpalatable as possible, which doesn't really change the truth at all.
Thanks for responding (without the insults and pettiness), I appreciate it. I've already been labelled a troll by you and another poster so I will try to make this (my definition of) brief...
So the truth that you believe the game posits, and that players should embrace as meaningful, is that atrocities can be committed ethically?
(And I will say atrocities across the board rather than 'sacrifices', because none of the endings really fit the definition of 'sacrifice' in the self-sacrificial manner we widely know it today - more the antiquated offering-up-an-innocent-victim-to-an-angry-god type sacrifice, and in this context that is an atrocity, since races are wiped out or mutations inflicted.)
So the whole purpose of this epic narrative - the intent of investing players into making the choices that would lead to this end point and driving them with purpose to achieve a noble goal - was to get them to realise that all history (indeed even future history) is built upon the back of horrors that we can ultimately allow ourselves to excuse as 'necessary'?
I will leave out all of the buzz words that you seem to find so problematic, and just say that if this really was the purpose of the game, if Bioware truly did engineer such a circumstance in which to arbitrarily force (and they do not offer a viable alternative in game, so at best it is duress) players to renegotiate the boundaries of their ethics in order to include actions that violate what they would have otherwise considered sacrosanct, then their purpose is purely to muddy the beliefs of those who hold firm to ethics and morality that would argue such violations are egregious.
Those who would have had no ethical concerns about inflicting slaughter or mutation or domination are rewarded; but those who already find such actions deplorable are forced to reconsider their world view, and finally okay such actions as - in your words - 'committed ethically'.
Those who value the rights of others as inviolable, and who have fought throughout the game to respect those beliefs, are punished and told that they were wrong; but those who don't care are rewarded and sacrifice nothing. That says little about 'hope' in the future (or indeed the past) of human kind, and is a rather deplorable message for an artist to send in a tale that claimed (even in the voice of the narrative's antagonist) to be about fighting to build a better future.
This is precisely the issue that I have been raising all along: I find this a cynical vision of (at best) compelled moral relativity, and I am surprised to hear you applaud it so gratefully.
The most accurate generalization of the endings.DirtySHISN0 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.
There isn't anything to think about. None of the endings are beneficial, not one is worth choosing. Its all about personal preference of lesser evils.
silverexile17s wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
1. Laws are laws.
2. Because that's most likely going to be the way he takes care of "problems" now.
3. Because it caused everyone involved a ton of problems and brought down space cthulu on top of everyone's head!
An actual argument for point 2 would be nice.
what is worse - killing or indoctrinating them (to be nice and peaceful). both options are available and both are a very inversive form of protecting the weak.
even the "peaceful" possibility is highly questionable. in addition, the essence is based on shepards thoughts .. and shepard would do anything to protect the weak - or obliterate the enemy. shepard got the job done - always.
That was Shepard. Not an A.I. Machine-God that has his/her memories.
We know that just because someone has the memories of someone else, doesn't make them that person.
Just look at Grunt and Okeer. Okeer gave Grunt generations of memories, but Grunt turned out nothing like he intended him to. Whos to say that THIS will last anywhere as long as the Catalyst did?
1. Your missing thepoint. If you're given 2moraliy conflicting choices and one that is not moraly conflicting...Then there is no moral conflict..You'll just pick the choice that does notconflcit with your morals.DirtySHISN0 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
If the point is to bring te player to moral conflict andyou give them an easy choice to make, the point of moral conflict is lost. You don't see that?
How is attempting to resist certain death the easy option.
We are told we cannot defeat them conventionally.
You will die, everyone of your squadmates will die, all of the space flight species will die and in doing so you will not have sacrificed your principles, morals or ethics for a quick fix. The people who die alongside you will have done so of their own free will without washing their hands of responsibility, without accepting false truths or being blinded to alternatives.
It's losing for the right reasons.
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.silverexile17s wrote...
The most accurate generalization of the endings.DirtySHISN0 wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.
There isn't anything to think about. None of the endings are beneficial, not one is worth choosing. Its all about personal preference of lesser evils.
Indeed. It's hard to preach philosiphy whin any philosopher would find severe fault with the all endings.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf...Did someone not seE delivery in concept of ME1? Did you not see ME1's ads.
Many hard choices lie ahead, none of them easy.
What are you willing to Sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force?
Sorry but the issue of moral conflict in ME was the firstthing said about it. Now you're surprize it's there?
Everything has a breaking point. There comes a point where it just gets to be too much and stops being fun.
ME3's endings not only crossed that line, it sprinted across and kept on going.
Okay, now you're just getting insulting.
Sorry if I don't find genocide or "evolutionary perfection" as entertaining as you do. This game did make me think. It made me think "What an awful ending for anyone who wanted to play a hero"
You don't get the moral and ethic are not relative?silverexile17s wrote...
Indeed. It's hard to preach philosiphy whin any philosopher would find severe fault with the all endings.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf
Many hard choices lie ahead, none of them easy.
What are you willing to Sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force?
Sorry but the issue of moral conflict in ME was the firstthing said about it. Now you're surprize it's there?
Everything has a breaking point. There comes a point where it just gets to be too much and stops being fun.
ME3's endings not only crossed that line, it sprinted across and kept on going.
Okay, now you're just getting insulting.
Sorry if I don't find genocide or "evolutionary perfection" as entertaining as you do. This game did make me think. It made me think "What an awful ending for anyone who wanted to play a hero"
Modifié par dreman9999, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:54 .
dreman9999 wrote...
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.
1. The catalyst does have control over what the crucible does.Redbelle wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
@Redbelle
The issue of conflict over choice son hand was there day one and advertized from day one. It is not bad because it goes to the extreme.
Also control and destoy are not space magic. Only synthesis is.
Ok, then let's ask this. If you go with destroy, why didn't Shepard ask the Cat if he could tweak it so that only synthetic Reapers would be destroyed? Shep had the thing built, yet when the Cat says you'll destroy every synthetic in the galaxy Shepard is non-pullussed that such an act would destroy the Geth and Edi.
Common, this is an important question. The catalyst was built by a huge number of individuals, this would have required managers and project managers feeding into a guy who knows which guy worked on what bit. So pulling all this knowledge together. Why is Shepard treating the Crucible, the last hope of the cycle, like another one of his pistols? If it was made to do all that stuff, why isn't it able to be changed?
And if it can't be changed why doesn't Shepard pursue this line of questioning till he arrives at this conclusion? The conversation goes on long enough that another minute of conversation pursuing the welbeing of others is not out of character.
Then it's your choice. That does not mean the game is bad.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.
If my reaction is to walk away and never play the game again, I'd say it rendered the game pointless.
Modifié par AlanC9, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:00 .
That seems like nihilism, to not care about ones own existance.dreman9999 wrote...
SpamBot2000 wrote...
It appears someone is confusing thinking with reveling in nihilism.
The only people who are seeing the ending as nihilsm are the people who react to the endings negativly as unchoosable choices.
My victory is that the galexy survives and the people I care fori n the game survives. As long as they do are hope last.
I 'll take any burden or sin to make sure hope last.
dreman9999 wrote...
Then it's your choice. That does not mean the game is bad.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.
If my reaction is to walk away and never play the game again, I'd say it rendered the game pointless.
Modifié par iakus, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:00 .
No it doesn't. It just mean you don't like the game.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then it's your choice. That does not mean the game is bad.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.
If my reaction is to walk away and never play the game again, I'd say it rendered the game pointless.
Actually, yeah, it kinda does
No it not creating a reaper ai. It's you Shepard up loaded. It has you thoughts and memories. That also means emotions.silverexile17s wrote...
That seems like nihilism, to not care about ones own existance.dreman9999 wrote...
SpamBot2000 wrote...
It appears someone is confusing thinking with reveling in nihilism.
The only people who are seeing the ending as nihilsm are the people who react to the endings negativly as unchoosable choices.
My victory is that the galexy survives and the people I care fori n the game survives. As long as they do are hope last.
I 'll take any burden or sin to make sure hope last.
Control is creating a Reaper A.I. with your experences. Not you.
It doesn't share your emotions. Just directives that were formed from the echo of thought.
And we know from the Catalyst, that Directives can be warped.
The ONLY ending that offers any solas is Destroy, and the price for that is the genocide of synthetic life.
NONE of it is worth the outcomes of any of them in the end.
And an equal ammount ofproplr like the ending post -ec. You and a group of games not liking the ending does not mean it's bad. Just that you don't like it.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then it's your choice. That does not mean the game is bad.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Then you missedthe point. The issue is that it's a hypathetical question. It's about seeing how you react to the choice at hand. hat does not mean it's pointless if you don't like the choices on hand.
If my reaction is to walk away and never play the game again, I'd say it rendered the game pointless.
Actually, yeah, it kinda does
Edit: at least it was bad for me. And apparantly a large number of other people.
Retour en haut