530 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

i've just read through it.....sort of. Very good read.

I don't like the ending - but can understand where you are coming from.

I do however think there is a danger of almost trying to justify the game (or certain parts of it) through over-analysis. Sometimes bad is just........bad. For no other reason than that. Sometimes they dont explain things because they haven't thought that far forward. Also it might be worth while to actually look at it with 'Dark Energy' in mind - rather than multi coloured explosions - which they pulled for the lameass ending we have today.

Certainly a good read. Looking forward to the next part.

[Andres Hendrix]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Here is a part of my original ethical discussion dealing with the control ending, "The control ending means that we take over the minds the will of another sentient race, essentially making them our slaves to do our bidding (I am eerily reminded, of Big Brother’s growing efficiency with thought control in 1984). It is a fact that advanced societies are known for their refusal of slavery. Even the Greeks disposed of the slavery for debt under the
reforms of Solon the wise, and the Romans disposed of the slavery for debt in the twelve tables; usually the less slavery the better the society."

"Control means thought control and slavery of a sentient species, and seemingly turns Shepard into a benevolent yet creepy dictator (unethical)." * Once again here is the link to my original discussion, which maintains my full writings on the subject, http://social.biowar.../index/13726613

[dreman9999]

David7204 wrote...

Ok, first of all, a science fiction story using unrealistic science is not a "giant fallacy in logic." It's unrealistic science. There's a damn big difference between the two.

Secondly, BioWare is not 'claiming' anything by using the Catalyst. That is ridiculous. The Catalyst is a character, not the mouth of BioWare.

We can't say it's unralistice science. Just a concept we can' t understand.

But I agree with youpoint onthe character.

[dreman9999]

Mumba1511 wrote...

I just thought they were video-game endings, nothing else to them, really.

The ending bring up a point of free will vs reality of the events on hand. I won't say it's just a video game ending.
Itbrings up a point that theuniverse does not bend to our morality and being free has it's consiquences as well.

[dreman9999]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Here is a part of my original ethical discussion dealing with the control ending, "The control ending means that we take over the minds the will of another sentient race, essentially making them our slaves to do our bidding (I am eerily reminded, of Big Brother’s growing efficiency with thought control in 1984). It is a fact that advanced societies are known for their refusal of slavery. Even the Greeks disposed of the slavery for debt under the
reforms of Solon the wise, and the Romans disposed of the slavery for debt in the twelve tables; usually the less slavery the better the society."

"Control means thought control and slavery of a sentient species, and seemingly turns Shepard into a benevolent yet creepy dictator (unethical)." * Once again here is the link to my original discussion, which maintains my full writings on the subject, http://social.biowar.../index/13726613

But the nature of that race is to be control and not to have free will. 
The reapers were nothing more than tools. You have to consider their nature in this concept.

As Legion said"Judging others based on you own morality is racist."

[dreman9999]

dorktainian wrote...

i've just read through it.....sort of. Very good read.

I don't like the ending - but can understand where you are coming from.

I do however think there is a danger of almost trying to justify the game (or certain parts of it) through over-analysis. Sometimes bad is just........bad. For no other reason than that. Sometimes they dont explain things because they haven't thought that far forward. Also it might be worth while to actually look at it with 'Dark Energy' in mind - rather than multi coloured explosions - which they pulled for the lameass ending we have today.

Certainly a good read. Looking forward to the next part.

You have to consider the fact that they left it open for use to decide what means what. ME isnot a peice that has a literal messege. It's set up for us to make our own.

[Andres Hendrix]

dreman9999 wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Here is a part of my original ethical discussion dealing with the control ending, "The control ending means that we take over the minds the will of another sentient race, essentially making them our slaves to do our bidding (I am eerily reminded, of Big Brother’s growing efficiency with thought control in 1984). It is a fact that advanced societies are known for their refusal of slavery. Even the Greeks disposed of the slavery for debt under the
reforms of Solon the wise, and the Romans disposed of the slavery for debt in the twelve tables; usually the less slavery the better the society."

"Control means thought control and slavery of a sentient species, and seemingly turns Shepard into a benevolent yet creepy dictator (unethical)." * Once again here is the link to my original discussion, which maintains my full writings on the subject, http://social.biowar.../index/13726613

But the nature of that race is to be control and not to have free will. 
The reapers were nothing more than tools. You have to consider their nature in this concept.

As Legion said"Judging others based on you own morality is racist."

You seem to be making an eye for an eye defence, where you
punish (in this case) the Reaper with the same crime. There is an internal
paradox at work (Legion must have been having a hiccup in logic day), how can
it be wrong for the Reapers to control people when you use it yourself as a punishment?
We do not use eye for an eye morality in Western thought today, let me put it
like this. It may be a rapist’s nature to rape, but he or she is not punished
with a sentence of rape. In Pakistan and Iran such things happen (women can be
sentenced to be raped by 'kangaroo' courts, for 'shaming' males in their society) I would not call
such an instance justice; I would call it morally grotesque (yes I am judging
their shoddy justice system). All you do when you say that the Reapers were ‘tools’,
is validate my point even further, the thought control of another sentient
species is morally reprehensible, not to mention it is hard for a society to
claim that it is at a stage of greater advancement when it advances not by its
own means, but by enslaving another. How about you ask yourself about your
own nature, could you truly live with such a system of justice?

[dreman9999]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Here is a part of my original ethical discussion dealing with the control ending, "The control ending means that we take over the minds the will of another sentient race, essentially making them our slaves to do our bidding (I am eerily reminded, of Big Brother’s growing efficiency with thought control in 1984). It is a fact that advanced societies are known for their refusal of slavery. Even the Greeks disposed of the slavery for debt under the
reforms of Solon the wise, and the Romans disposed of the slavery for debt in the twelve tables; usually the less slavery the better the society."

"Control means thought control and slavery of a sentient species, and seemingly turns Shepard into a benevolent yet creepy dictator (unethical)." * Once again here is the link to my original discussion, which maintains my full writings on the subject, http://social.biowar.../index/13726613

But the nature of that race is to be control and not to have free will. 
The reapers were nothing more than tools. You have to consider their nature in this concept.

As Legion said"Judging others based on you own morality is racist."

You seem to be making an eye for an eye defence, where you
punish (in this case) the Reaper with the same crime. There is an internal
paradox at work (Legion must have been having a hiccup in logic day), how can
it be wrong for the Reapers to control people when you use it yourself as a punishment?
We do not use eye for an eye morality in Western thought today, let me put it
like this. It may be a rapist’s nature to rape, but he or she is not punished
with a sentence of rape. In Pakistan and Iran such things happen (women can be
sentenced to be raped by 'kangaroo' courts, for 'shaming' males in their society) I would not call
such an instance justice; I would call it morally grotesque (yes I am judging
their shoddy justice system). All you do when you say that the Reapers were ‘tools’,
is validate my point even further, the thought control of another sentient
species is morally reprehensible, not to mention it is hard for a society to
claim that it is at a stage of greater advancement when it advances not by its
own means, but by enslaving another. How about you ask yourself about your
own nature, could you truly live with such a system of justice?

It'snot an eye for an eye argument I'm making. I'm justpointing out that the question of ethics has to consider all sides ethic in order to make a solid statement of what is ethical. Reason being isthat not everyone has the same ethics and morality. You many not agree that the other person point is ethicalbut you're missing the fact here is that ehthics is inherialy relitive.

This was a point made in Legions loyalty mission...

The issue here is based on the person and what they thinkis ethical and moral and the reality ofthe situation on hand.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:32 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Just my 2 cents because I see where this is going.

I understand that you don't like the ending, but I think the conversation would benefit more if you described the actual ethical problems rather than use overblown hyperbole to describe (yet again) things you don't like thematically or aren't comfortable with.

I'll just summarize what I got from your entertaining description:

Synthesis - Ethically dubious because of the galaxy's lack of choice. Got it. Bleak and cynical it may be through your interpretation, but others interpretted it differently.

Control - Still confused. I understand the "power corrupts" argument, but Paragon Shep is clearly warned in the voice-over. Is there an argument being made that "using power" (Shep is dead and created an AI) or "claiming power" (Shep is alive and uploaded) is inherently unethical? I see the obvious counter-argument: an opporunity existed for Shepard to gain power to end the war, help rebuild, and bring about peace, and Shepard abdicated.

Destroy - Ethically problematic because one form of life is sacrificed. Got it

Thanks for the patronising compliment.  I'll keep the 'overblown hyperbole' down so that the game's endorsement of genocide, mind control and eugenics can have their own time to shine.


Synthesis: forces a mutation upon all life because the belief is that synthetics and organics cannot get along unless this change is made.  This is not my imagination over-leaping; this is stated by the Catalyst.  His central belief is that all such conflict will never end until we all share the same DNA.  This is the definition of racism, and its 'cure' in this context is presented as forced eugenics.

Control: hijacks the minds of an entire race and in doing so elevates one figure to the status of Godhood.  It is a totalitarian rule no matter how benign Shepard proves to be.  Indeed, the Catayst offers this option because it too will provide order to the chaos.  The only way that peace can be achieved in the universe, apparently, is if we live under the shadow of a dictator - not matter how lovable that Dictator may be.

Destroy: genocides a friendly race of allies (by extension proving that their lives are of less worth than biological life), because their extermination is an acceptable sacrifice.


Any choice that the player makes therefore validates the Catalyst's original, cynical argument: biological and synthetic life will never be able to get along unless someone steps in the change them - against their will.  And the way in which that change is presented is by using the very tools that the Catalyst has been employing all along: eugenics (husks); mind-control (indoctrination); genocide (all the space cuttlefish lasering societies into ash).

Having Shepard use one of these options (and then be celebrated by the universe afterward) suggests that such crimes are 'okay' if you rather than the bad guy are using them. 

My position is that it is disturbing that a narrative purporting to be an epic, that claims to present heroism in the face of annihilation, should embrace such a morally relativistic position.  If we are no better than the Reapers - if we prove ourselves willing to think like them, and behave as they do - then all we fighting for was survival, not life, and this becomes little more than a horror story not a statement about sacrifice.

Modifié par drayfish, 01 novembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[drayfish]

dreman9999 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

i've just read through it.....sort of. Very good read.

I don't like the ending - but can understand where you are coming from.

I do however think there is a danger of almost trying to justify the game (or certain parts of it) through over-analysis. Sometimes bad is just........bad. For no other reason than that. Sometimes they dont explain things because they haven't thought that far forward. Also it might be worth while to actually look at it with 'Dark Energy' in mind - rather than multi coloured explosions - which they pulled for the lameass ending we have today.

Certainly a good read. Looking forward to the next part.

You have to consider the fact that they left it open for use to decide what means what. ME isnot a peice that has a literal messege. It's set up for us to make our own.

Mass Effect is not a piece of DADA art.

Claiming that it has no meaning but the one that you bring to it halts all analysis entirely, and would make your efforts to post on this discussion forum (along with everyone else's) utterly pointless.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
Destroy: genocides a friendly race of allies (by extension proving that their lives are of less worth than biological life).

You keep claiming this, but it doesn't follow logically.  You didn't get to choose who to kill.  You had a choice between letting some people die and letting everybody die.  The victims are synthetics but the victims could've been someone different.  It didn't make you choose your least favourite race.

Destroy says nothing about which form of life is more valuable.  If 25 people are tied to railway tracks and trains are coming, and you only have time to untie 20, then you untie 20.  You don't let them die because it's not fair on the other 5.

drayfish wrote...
Mass Effect is not a piece of DADA art.

But that's not what he's saying.  It doesn't need to be DADA art for different people to take different meanings.  The end is left intentionally open, so that different players can make different choices and have different views.  We're not all going to agree on what's 'right', but personally I think that's a good thing.

[Gervaise]

I would also point out that the writers say at the end that Shepard has become a "legend" not a "hero". Historically figures can be legendary for very dubious reasons. Ghengis Khan is legendary but not a hero unless you happen to live in Mongolia. Alexander the Great is legendary but not a hero unless you happen to live in Greece.

Part of the dissatisfaction with the endings arises because players feel they cannot regard Shepard as a hero because of the moral ambiguity of the choices. However, in terms of the world in which the action is set, Shepard's actions would no doubt be regarded as ethical whichever choice they make. This is really what you need to consider, not whether it matches our own ethics.

In the ME universe we know that the leaders of the current galatic civilisation have in the past endorsed:

Genocide/Extinction of a species - the Rachni
Forced genetic mutation of a species without their consent - the Krogan
Creation of an elite military force answerable to no one but themselves - the Spectres

These are just 3 examples of how questionable ethics have been present since day 1 of playing ME. Did anyone actually object to being made a Spectre? I tried to operate as a paragon Shepard but really to be willing to serve the Council knowing all these things means that Shepard can never be regarded as mortally and ethically above reproach by our own standards.

The reason that I regard synthesis as beyond the pale is that it doesn't just apply to sentient lifeforms but everything. I fail to see how plants and animals benefit from enforced applications of electrodes. As for aquatic creatures, one must hope the nanobots made them waterproof or it would have been a case of instant death. (I am being a bit silly here, I know, but I didn't create the concept)

Modifié par Gervaise, 01 novembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...
Destroy: genocides a friendly race of allies (by extension proving that their lives are of less worth than biological life).

You keep claiming this, but it doesn't follow logically.  You didn't get to choose who to kill.  You had a choice between letting some people die and letting everybody die.  The victims are synthetics but the victims could've been someone different.  It didn't make you choose your least favourite race.

Destroy says nothing about which form of life is more valuable.  If 25 people are tied to railway tracks and trains are coming, and you only have time to untie 20, then you untie 20.  You don't let them die because it's not fair on the other 5.

The Catalyst's central premise is that Synthetics and Organics will never be able to get along without killing each other.  He therefore tasks Shepard with exterminating half of that equation.  The victims may not be numerically greater (although it is never said how many Geth there are exactly), but they are an entire form of life that must be exterminated in order that the other can live.

So, no, the victims really could not have been someone different.  The scenario has a necessary and deliberate racial connotation that 'shoot the hostage' cannot cover.

[AlanC9]

drayfish, it sounds like you're assuming that the Catalyst either designed the Crucible or is controlling its function. Am I reading that right?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[Estelindis]

I think that Drayfish's posts are doing an excellent job of showcasing the severe ethical shortcomings of the endings.

Each ending makes a horrific moral compromise. The extended cut presents each one in a more positive light in terms of the consequences. However, Shepard doesn't know what's going to happen. From the point of view of Shepard in the moment of choice, it is a bewildering moral maze where each option contains great evil and the source of information about the options isn't even trustworthy. If the Catalyst really created the Reapers, why would Shepard think that cooperating with it or believing what it says would lead to a positive outcome? To my mind, this problem is at its worst with Control, because no one who previously tried to control the Reapers was able to do so; why would Shepard assume that s/he would be different? And, of course, regardless of that issue, the two other options annihilate a great deal of difference in the galaxy without the consent of those concerned. The geth have the right to exist, and everyone has the right to bodily integrity.

The fact that Bioware demands Shepard to choose between three evils gives a deeply cynical feeling to the trilogy at its ending, which, in my opinion, is at odds with the spirit of hope would one could choose to let pervade it. That's not an option at the end.

[AlanC9]

Gervaise wrote...

I would also point out that the writers say at the end that Shepard has become a "legend" not a "hero". Historically figures can be legendary for very dubious reasons. Ghengis Khan is legendary but not a hero unless you happen to live in Mongolia. Alexander the Great is legendary but not a hero unless you happen to live in Greece.

Well, Alexander used to be a hero for all "Western Civilization," back when people could still use that phrase without giggling. But yeah, these days it's more common to hear that the only difference between Alexander and a certain Austrian corporal is that Alexander won and the Austrian lost.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish, it sounds like you're assuming that the Catalyst either designed the Crucible or is controlling its function. Am I reading that right?

Whether or not the Catalyst 'designed' the Crucible (a question that due to Bioware's awful expaination for their magical 'I win' button becomes mired in conjecture), the Catalyst expressly states that its functions will solve his problem.  It offers solutions to his original belief that organics and synthetics will never get along.  He therefore endorses its tools in service of his agenda.


EDIT: (Although I'm sorry to say I'm not sure why the question is relevant anyway...)

Modifié par drayfish, 01 novembre 2012 - 10:34 .

[Iakus]

 My own thoughts are:

When letting the Reapers win becomes not only a viable, but for some people the preferred outcome, you done screwed up your endings pretty badly.

[Dr_Extrem]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Control: I really don't know what the ethical compromise here is. I've seem people explain their issues with it, but to me these all seem contingent on some Overlord head-cannon that is nowhere in the original ending, and clearly does not exist in the Paragon Control epilogue.

That's my take on it.

Will it really be shepard or has the catalyst stolen what it has longed for from the beginning - shepards essence. Is it a shepard AI or a VI that thinks its shepard. Will shepard really (in whatever form) have control of the reapers or will she in turn be bound to the reapers.

There is as much reason to believe he would lie about the outcome of any of the endings.

on controll


only shepards memories and thoughts are preserved.

the problem is, that a human being does not only consist of thoughts and memories - a human being is made of emotions, that add to our thoughts.

edi asked a very good question down in engineering "are we more than our thoughts?"

in controll, shepards essence becomes a highly sophisticated VI that acts upon one half of what made shepard the person he/she was. our thoughts and emotions are tied to each other. you can not think without feeling an emotion.

shepard stated it very good while he/she was talking to javik (if shep had a love interest). (according to shepard) without the love interest, there would only be death on his/her mind. love is an emotion and emotions do not exist in this form anymore.

nobody knows ... maybe one day the essence will "crack" and starts to see civilisation as a theat to itself. a new cycle of extinction could be the outcome. also in controll (paragon and renegade alike) the essence subdues all civilisation. as the ultimate vanguard, the essence supresses every form of conflict - it would be a forced peace. the renegade essence embraces the strong - is there still place for the weak?

since edi and the geth are also based on or enhanced by reaper tech, they will again become shackled ais and therefore bound to the essence against their own free will. edi would rather die, than become shackled again. same for the geth.

in my opinion, controll is the worst thing that could happen to the civilisation. if a civilisation choses to move into a certain direction, it is the civilisations choice. certain choices could not be made, because it could "anger" the essence. in addition, the free will is taken from synthetic life (based on reaper tech) as well. 

controll is like living in a cell without barrs.



on synthesis:

synthesis is also a very inversive outcome. all organic and synthetic live is amalgamated to form a new super race. the pinnacle of evolution. will minds be networked, like the geth? will all people be ok with this solution? eople have dark sides, secrets and a natural need for privacy. are those needs still satisfied?

another problem is, that "pinnacle of evolution" means, that it can only get worse from that point on. will unified minds reach consensus, what about the free will of the individual? what happens to something/one, that does not like the "perfect" status? groups will form inside the new super race. new poles (lake magnetic poles) will come up diversion is one outcome.

if all the minds inside the new super conciousness are in consensus, there is a lack of stimulus. this forum is a good example. we are getting stimulated, by people who write down opinions, that may collide with our own. there would be no more discussions possible and interlectual stimulation will be obliterated.

what drives people? ... we are driven by our curiosity and the desire to "go ahaid". on the pinnacle of evolution, minds would not be driven anymore (where to go and what else to acheave?). stagnation is regression. we would become more and more inert to our surrounding and would may "die" of bordom and lack of stimulus.

synthesis especially violates the needs of the geth, who want to advance under their own power. most of them rejected the "old machines gifts" because of this stance and they only accepted it in the third game, because they were afraid of their own destruction and that did not turn out well.

synthesis is violation of very personal rights and stagnation on an epic level.



on destruction:

should the few suffer to preserve the many?  no .. every living being is worth being saved. there are no "lesser" species in the galaxy every species chosed to fight against the reapers - that alone makes us equel. if we degrade certain life to be minor and sort them out, we become like the forces we intend to stop.

by destroying the reapers, we gain salvation. but by accepting the loss of synthetic life, we trade in some of the things, that make us all worth being saved in the first place. we loose a piece of our "humanity" and we betray those, who had hopes on us.

this ending is a very personal one. shepard accepts his/her own death without the chance of a second life. this alone would be an honorable self sacrafice, to preserve civilisation from extintion. edi would aprove this choice (even if she may would choose synthesis), since it is worth to die for the freedom of its own mind and to preserve loved ones. that leaves the geth ... nobody asked them. will they acheave consencus? will individual geth rebel against a made decision? the colleteral damage is high and should be avoided from an ethical viewpoint.

the fact that shepard can survive destroy, rubs only salt into the wound. imagine shepard survives the crash, gets burried out of the rubble with the heavy burdon on his/her soul. nobody will doubt the savior the galaxy - mostly because they are glad its over but also, because they might not know, that there were other options possible.  at some point ,shepard and the galaxy might start to reflect on the other outcomes. what would have happend, if shepard chosed different?

sacraficing the rights of some equals to preserve the rest of a civilisation.


difficult decisions indeed.

[Dr_Extrem]

iakus wrote...

 My own thoughts are:

When letting the Reapers win becomes not only a viable, but for some people the preferred outcome, you done screwed up your endings pretty badly.

aye . that should give the writers something to think about.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
The Catalyst's central premise is that Synthetics and Organics will never be able to get along without killing each other.  He therefore tasks Shepard with exterminating half of that equation.  The victims may not be numerically greater (although it is never said how many Geth there are exactly), but they are an entire form of life that must be exterminated in order that the other can live.

So, no, the victims really could not have been someone different.  The scenario has a necessary and deliberate racial connotation that 'shoot the hostage' cannot cover.

You're not doing the Child's bidding.  You're using the Crucible.  It kills the Reapers but it affects all synthetics.  You never knew what it would do.  "The Child's central premise" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.  If you agreed with his premise, you wouldn't pick Destroy, because you'd be accepting that organics and synthetics will eventually kill each other.  By picking Destroy, you're saying you disagree and you're going to give the galaxy a chance not to destroy itself (as it's pretty clear that organics will continue to build synthetics).

ThIs is not even remotely racist.  The fact that you are actually using the forums to promote your idea that the writers are being deliberately racist in providing this choice is, in all honesty, appalling.

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...

Whether or not the Catalyst 'designed' the Crucible (a question that due to Bioware's awful expaination for their magical 'I win' button becomes mired in conjecture), the Catalyst expressly states that its functions will solve his problem.  It offers solutions to his original belief that organics and synthetics will never get along.  He therefore endorses its tools in service of his agenda.


EDIT: (Although I'm sorry to say I'm not sure why the question is relevant anyway...)

Well, you brought up the "Catalyst's central premise," presumably for a reason. If the Catalyst doesn't have anything to do with the Crucible, then I don't see how his premise matters.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 novembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Whether or not the Catalyst 'designed' the Crucible (a question that due to Bioware's awful expaination for their magical 'I win' button becomes mired in conjecture), the Catalyst expressly states that its functions will solve his problem.  It offers solutions to his original belief that organics and synthetics will never get along.  He therefore endorses its tools in service of his agenda.


EDIT: (Although I'm sorry to say I'm not sure why the question is relevant anyway...)

Well, you brought up the "Catalyst's central premise," presumably for a reason. If the Catalyst doesn't have anything to do with the Crucible, then I don't see how his premise matters.

In the quote you just referenced I explained precisely how the Catalyst endorses the function of the Crucible.  How is this having 'nothing to do' with it?  Someone can sanction and endorse the use of a bomb without having built it themself.