530 réponses à ce sujet

[ghost9191]

well actually pretty sure destroy solves the reaper problem pretty well

[Ultranovae]

Also, for all replies (I wish I could quote but it quite tricky to do from a phone) it seems that the point that synthesis kills genetic diversity is not a very good one.
From what I see, the species don't look the same. Their genetic code just seems re-written to have this single common characteristic, the whole entirety of their genetic code seems otherwise a unaltered.
In other words, there seems to be plenty if genetic diversity, Krogan babies are still the same, humans are still human looking. If all DNA were the same everyone would be exactly the same.
But yeah, it's true, everyone would definitely be forced to a huge change which though seemingly beneficial, forces a change on all organic and synthetic beings throwing them into a future of uncertain possibilities.
I really think that the gloominess which most people chose to view the endings is exaggerated. There are benefits and sacrifices, and bringing the end to not just a war but a cycle of such destruction indeed should require some compromises. Otherwise, we would end up having a fairy tale, Disney ending. A tale such as Mass effect deserves better than such inconsequential ending.

[silverexile17s]

Ultranovae wrote...

Also, for all replies (I wish I could quote but it quite tricky to do from a phone) it seems that the point that synthesis kills genetic diversity is not a very good one.
From what I see, the species don't look the same. Their genetic code just seems re-written to have this single common characteristic, the whole entirety of their genetic code seems otherwise a unaltered.
In other words, there seems to be plenty if genetic diversity, Krogan babies are still the same, humans are still human looking. If all DNA were the same everyone would be exactly the same.
But yeah, it's true, everyone would definitely be forced to a huge change which though seemingly beneficial, forces a change on all organic and synthetic beings throwing them into a future of uncertain possibilities.
I really think that the gloominess which most people chose to view the endings is exaggerated. There are benefits and sacrifices, and bringing the end to not just a war but a cycle of such destruction indeed should require some compromises. Otherwise, we would end up having a fairy tale, Disney ending. A tale such as Mass effect deserves better than such inconsequential ending.

Not true. It completely rewrites the genetic code down to the cellular level, making all beings similar, and geneticly compatable. (example: I highly doubt that dextro-levo amino acid problem still exists, allowing limitless cross-breading. THAT requires alteration of genetics that basically makes all beings fundamentally the same). They LOOK the same, but on the cellular level, it's a different stroy. And besides, we don't see a hundred to a thousand years later to see how it looks THEN.
And there ARE positives, yes, but it ALWAYS feels like they are outweighed by the negitives, no matter what you do.

[Dr_Extrem]

the problem with synthesis is, that you bypass thousnads of years of evolution - without alterering the experiences of the uplifted. at first, the new experience will be breathtaking and a lot of things inside the new conciuosness can be explored - but after that, there is nowehere else to go.

imperfect and primitive beings - like asari, turians humans ect, are driven by their curiosity and the need for self-improvement. if you can not feed those needs, they will die off, leaving the community in stagnation. some might even loose their meaning - scientists, explorers and adventurers i.e. those beings are strongly driven by their curiosity - it is the major force in their life. "i have become, comfortably numb." this ending caters the the lazy, the couch potatoes - the numb.

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Belief is irrelevant. If the Catalyst's just toying with you for the lulz, you've lost anyway.

That's the exact truth. No matter what you choose, you've lost anyway.

That's silly. Refuse dooms the galaxy, but the other options save it.

to be more specific, Refuse dooms the cycle. But the seeds planted in that cycle lead to the eventual breaking of the cycles come the next one. In that cycle it appears that the Reapers were stopped. And on the terms of those who would have been reaped. Not on the terms of the Catalyst.

Without knowing how they defeated the Reapers most of this is conjecture. But it disproves the notion that the Reapers cannot ever be defeated period.

[Redbelle]

AlanC9 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

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.

Why would Shepard think that the Catalyst could tweak it?

When throwing a switch will result in genocide and the loss of a crewmember, why wouldn't you probe the issue to see if you can fine tune a more favourable outcome? Shep takes so much on faith from Star brat that he stops trying to find the best way to fight the Reapers and gives in to a manifestation of a kid you could probably duplicate by eating to many mushrooms.

But let's not kid ourselves. Shepard had grown as a character into an icon. The 2 writers who wrote the ending lacked the personal involvment to know how to effectively characterise him. And as a result we ended up with cardboard Shepard while the Catalyst becomes a handy infodump plot device who inadvertantly takes on the role of lead character. With Shepard pushed to the sidelines to provide a sounding board/prompt for Cat to continue explaining why cycles of genocide is a good thing, when in my playthrough the Geth and Quarians were re-united under a flag of peace.

A game of choice where my choices matter? The catalyst was written to do the exact oppoisite. To shoehorn all playthroughs into the exact same scenarios. The cat might have well been portreyed as a brick wall. Or a group of collectors with baseball bats to pound Shepard into submission. At least then he'd have a reason to turn into a flakey ring nosed led shadow of his former self.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 novembre 2012 - 09:31 .

[Ultranovae]

I have to admit that synthesis, and control in fact run counter to one thing that was hammered down to us in ME2: we shouldn't accept technology that we are not yet ready to use, don't take that which you have no labored to obtain and comprehend.
At the end of ME3 we have just been revealed that this conflict has been about organics vs synthetics all along. Though a technological singularity may indeed be inevitable, Shepard, the player and in fact no one in the galaxy (this includes the starchild himself) is ready to obtain or comprehend.
I do not believe that synthesis kills bio diversity. In fact it seems to be thriving in the EC. I do not think it homogenized the genetic code of every living being. Rather it seems synthesis merely alters all sentient beings in such a way that they all share this one attribute.
But I am starting to question the wisdom of both using that clearly contradicts a paragon mantra in the series and label it as THE ideal solution.
For what it brings to all beings, that almost naively good utopia, it seems good, but only in hindsight.
Otherwise, our previous experience in the mass effect universe have prepared us to see that choice as one only a fool would take.

[Element_Zero]

  More things on the endings . . . I suppose I should post a variation of my thought.

Ok for me in this case, I am of the belief that NO ending is entirely rosy as they are painted out to be nor as some argue. Despite how oddly enough after reading a few postings here (for some,) there there is nothing wrong with them either, (which for me is rather disturbing.)

Each has pitfalls and more or less represents a 'price' one pays for the choices given. There are problems with how the Catalyst (whom I've heard also referred to as Star Child,) more or less dictates the parameters of those endings as well. For me there are questions as to how can I trust the Catalyst when I look at the actions this identiy has taken to complete this goal of harvesting life to prevent extinction. For me all of those actions the Catalyst has taken represent their version of controlling a outcome. I also have never really seen the Catalyst as a single entity but more or less a series of AI minds (maybe even more than that considering how he explains harvesting,) as represented by the odd way it speaks.

To me for all of the power the Catalyst represents (it has been very sucessful in wiping out a unknown amount of races for a unknown amount of cycles,) I was left with this one question. Why bother?

When I analyze that question I end up going over the following. . . Sometimes I vary it a bit to see if I'm interpreting it right or missing something.

(((  It's obvious to me that it has very little ethics. It practices indoctrination, rips apart what it views as lesser beings and uses them as thralls. Shows no sign of remorse while explaining this. And when it completes the cycle it has no issues with letting those indoctrinated or turned into thralls from starving to death (as stated in the eariler ME games.) It controlls how techology develops by leaving information behind for the next cycle thus making it easier for subtrifuge. Yet it claimes to have preserved each of these societies even though these vary actions wipe out individuals on ALL levels. But those things said, it could have very well set the reapers on the outskirts of the galaxy and simply observed and thus kept track of each societies rise and downfall. But it didn't. So how did it perserve each society? It turned them into a Reaper apparently and still had the balls to claim at the end it was perserving them.

There is another issue, even with the Geth with their sort of spread out AI 'mind'. Soverign had no problem (indoctrinating them,) with rewritting their logic either with respect to the heretics. At least with how Legion explains it as being a change with baseline logic in ME2.  Soverign viewed them with obvious loathing.  )))

So there in turn is why I have issues with even trusting Catalyst. He (metaphorically,) has done absolutely nothing to earn it. And his actions as well with claiming to being the leader of the Reapers lead me to believe he was still seeking some level of control even while you stand there talking to him. And there was a certain amount of coldness, loathing, and arrogance I picked up while talking with him. For me he was just a bit larger Elusive Man whos ethical constrants disappeared many millions of years ago.

So in turn this lead to questions later. . .
Do I pick Control?
Do I pick Synthesis?
Do I pick Destroy?
Do I abstain and pick Refuse?

With Control it more or less means I would turn myself into the Catalyst. But as I interpeted how what the little rat was saying I had this sinking feeling that somehow in some way this enitity that has lived this long wasn't going to let this happen as easily as one would think. (I also thought that given enough time he would resort to his eariler actions of subtrifuge to prove how he was right and you were wrong. Given his arrogance and how that was expressed though the actions of minions.)

Synthesis ment me (again,) giving up at the vary least my body, soul, mind. So more or less silicon and wires could blend with everything out there. A bit obsurd considering we are in some ways biological machines anyway Which I didn't entirely understand as to how that was suppost to help anyone? (Oh wait a minute the Catalyst likes this one. Why did a Red Flag just go up?) Especially sense as the little rat reminded me I already was partly biomechanical. (Again given the way this guy has controlled the outcome of all of these cycles for so many years. Now suddenly I'm giving up 'me' (while this AI survives mind you!) and potentially allowing access to not only sentient life but even plant life!  Am I handing the little rat a variation of control on a silver platter in which he can still complete his 'solution' only with greater access? I remembered how the Reapers were melting down humans in ME2 to build their vision of this 'solution'. Also how am I suppost to believe that years later something else dosen't attempt to hack everything much like a virus works in biological organisms and just kill it all with one flip of the switch?)

Destroy *sighs* gawd dammit I came all this way to prove to you (the Catalyst,) that AI and organics can potentially get along. . . And now you ****g tell me that those examples I've worked so hard at getting them evolved to that point will die should I go this route?!?!? YOUR IGNORANCE just wiped out the fact I got the Geth and Quarians to work together?!??

At this point I wanted to tell him to call off the dam Reapers and give it a few years. Lets just see, since after all of the crap you put me though! I also wanted to point out to him that no society in existance hasn't had some chaotic moments and IF you actually perserved and UNDERSTOOD these various societies for all of these years YOU would come to that conclusion you chicken bleeping logical cold hearted jackass. Just examine the history with the Geth and Quarians! Some biologicals did fight for the Geth, hello?

But that is when I realized the Catalyst has a agenda set in stone. There was little reasoning to be had with him. It's either one of these 3 choices or I the great and mighty all knowing Catalyst will continue with my great solution ! (<<aka Refuse!<<) Gawd I wanted to yell at him >> Your acting out of fear and a failure to provide some guidance WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OR WIPEING OUT ENTIRE SOCIETIES! And how in the hell can you go this long absorbing techologies and ideas of all of these societes you've essentally killed and not come up with some contradictory logic?


UGH! lulz.  Still to this day those endings are at some level frusterating to me! But oh well. . . As Darth Sideous says . . "So be it."

Bare in mind those were my viewpoints on this based on what I did my best to take from the various lines within the game. Now I could go on, but screw it. . This has been hashed out so many times on these boards. Still I guess I have to admit that there are times where I enjoy reading the varied perspectives and varied logical theorys.

GL out there. PS sorry for the wall of text. . I guess I got to babbing on too much.

Modifié par Element_Zero, 03 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[Redbelle]

Fandango9641 wrote...

So if one uses the word ‘sacrifice’ to describe the immoral actions of our games conclusion, all is well? Well that won’t do for me Obadiah, not by a stretch. You say that you ‘don't see the endings as atrocities, but as sacrifices’ but it's a fact many here see them as war crimes, myself included. So no, I’m not especially motivated to use a semantic loophole to excuse murder, extermination, enslavement or rape in defence of what I perceive to be a disgusting conclusion to the trilogy.

That the game celebrates the virtue of 3 actions with such ethical 'challenges', without giving full weight to the very real consequences of each is a real problem to me. That it isn’t for others is entirely on them....but carry on by all means!

If memory serves, the endings lifted from Deus Ex were taken to extremes. In Deus Ex, 2 of the 3 endings only directly affected the hero or the bad guy in his tank and his AI. The other one plunged the world into the dark ages. None the less the endings all had very different outcomes.

In ME the scale of the endings renders the final outcomes equally unpalitable. Especially in a series where your choices are supposed to lad to branching conclusions. As it is the branches feed into one path that then split into 3-4 outsomes that do not take into account the journey you took to reach the ending.

That the ending revolves around 4 outcomes that each, in some way, violates the articles of human rights is more a critique against the writer of those endings than the endings themselves. By now we know that the endings were not peer reviewed and were written in a room with two ppl without support from the whole writing team. This one event seems to have been the snowball that resulted in a poorly crafted ending taking so much flak. And the development work into retconning the endings so the writing team could go over it properly would hardly be cost effective in both time and money. So BW is essentially stuck with what it's got.

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 novembre 2012 - 11:08 .

[Dr_Extrem]

the epilogues "only" go a few hundered years into the future. a few hundred years in nothing.


what happens after a few thousand years?

what will the controll essence do, if mass extinction (by illness/cataclysmic effects) threatens the society?

will the essence deem society as too ill to be worth protected during a new dark age?


what happens, if the synthesis society has nothing more to acheave?

will they just stagnate and "live" into the day?

where is the driving force in the long term, since the apex of evolution is already achieved?


will new synthetics arise and threaten the galaxy?

what will new synthetics do, when they find out, that their predecessors where sacraficed to preserve organics?

what about upstarting new and old civilisations - will they take the chance to take over the weakened society?


all endings have a lot of uncertainties. though destroy is the only one, that lets civilisation evolve on its own and without any form of influencing them.

[Obadiah]

Fandango9641...
So if one uses the word ‘sacrifice’ to describe the immoral actions of our games conclusion, all is well?
...

@Fandango9641
Yes, that would be the long and short of it. If you are saying the action of Synthesis, Destroy, Control, and/or Refuse are immoral and unethical actions irrespective of the intent of the person committing the act, then my response is to disagree. Though, I and others who like the ending may understand your judgement on the choices, we do not share them.

"Immoral" would be a conclusion to be reached through some discussion, not a premise.

Looking at the 20 pages of quote pyramids I don't see any agreement being reached on that.

@Element_Zero
With respec to your impression of the Catalyst, I agree with most of what you said. When speaking to it, I felt that I was in the presence of an emotionless dispassionate god, that had made a fairly bleak and clinical analysis of our puny irrelevant lives.

If one considers potential subterfuge on the part of the Catalyst, it seems all options presented could be traps. To me this does not seem like a useful road to go down.

So I picked the option with the least sacrifice, and the most potential for success: Control.

@Dr_Extrem
Someone else pointed this out, isn't taking the epilogue depicted into account meta-gaming? Shouldn't we judge the ending based on what is presented by the Catalyst?

@Anyone
Assuming there is an absolute ethical standard, can an action irrespective of intent be unethical?

Obviously, there are some actions whose ethical determination is based on intent:
- Stating something false  (lying vs ignorance)
- Homicide (murder vs self-defense)
Are there some actions that are just always unethical or immoral?

[Redbelle]

Obadiah wrote...

*snip

@Anyone
Assuming there is an absolute ethical standard, can an action irrespective of intent be unethical?

Well the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

If Shepard had been the one and only one to have taken the hit from choosing an option to stop the Reapers then I'd be happy. In fact, control seems to fit that category but ultimately, only by rejecting our inner humanity to be ruled over by benevolent machines in what is all but a police state galaxy.

Destroy would have been absolutely perfect as it removes the Reapers from the galaxy which has been the mission ME promoted since we learned who they were and what they do. Unfortunately any sacrifice made there ultimately screws over a select group of ppl, geth and Edi, and the Quarians, which I happen to identify with strongly with all the time I've spent listening to their history and debating their sense of purpose in life.

And synthesis? I've spoken to a guy who likes it so much he sounds cult indoctrinated and thinks anyone may have escaped the process in the galaxy needs to be rounded up and put in synthesis camps to go through the process. <shivers> not going there.

Ultimately Shepard had no easy answer. But only because a simple question or mandate was complicated beyond belief by the Catalyst. How do I stop the Reapers?

The catalyst is still, in my opinion, the worst character, Deus Ex Machina, Star Brat to turn up in video game history. Not only because of the way he was introduced, but also because we don't have the time to get to know him. Whereas we could do character studies on any other character, a ten minute conversation with Mr roundabout self fufilling logic culminates in the Star Brat sticking his fingers in his ears whenever Shepard puts his point of view across.

And why does the glowing child do this? Because he is the enemy. He is a manistifation of the hive mind of the Reapers. He is therefore the enemy who has taken a break from shooting at Shepard to put up his feet on the coffee table for elevensies and a cosy chat with the guy he's been after all this time. Now we can choose to reject the Reapers but what we get is a cutscene that screams You didn't stop the Reapers, you didn't save anyone, now here's a scene of two people you don't know talking about how great you are now that your presumably Reaper Goo that got fragged by the next cycle.

So in every scenario somebody as well as Shepard has to be sacrificed. This is, for me, the problem. If it had been Shepard alone who took the bullet I could shoulder that. It's the way that all these races failed to give Shepard the authority to act on their behalf come what may to defeat the Reapers that rankles me. If the Geth had said we would sacrifice everything to bring about the end of the Reapers then I could pick destroy without any mis givings. The fact that none has and seem to enter the battle under the premise that the sun will rise on a brand new day and everything will be as it once before reminds me of a loyal farm dog that follows it's master, carrying a shotgun, behind the shed.

I'm not saying that the scenario isn't plausible. Just that if 3 scenario's, now 4, were conceived. why these ones, and what was the narrative premise behind them. Cause while on one hand they were brave decisions that are truely mind expanding through the debate they generated. The other hand is that Mac and Cheese have really screwed up the entertainment value of my video game!

Modifié par Redbelle, 03 novembre 2012 - 07:46 .

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

Fandango9641...
So if one uses the word ‘sacrifice’ to describe the immoral actions of our games conclusion, all is well?
...

@Fandango9641
Yes, that would be the long and short of it. If you are saying the action of Synthesis, Destroy, Control, and/or Refuse are immoral and unethical actions irrespective of the intent of the person committing the act, then my response is to disagree. Though, I and others who like the ending may understand your judgement on the choices, we do not share them.

"Immoral" would be a conclusion to be reached through some discussion, not a premise.

Looking at the 20 pages of quote pyramids I don't see any agreement being reached on that.

@Element_Zero
With respec to your impression of the Catalyst, I agree with most of what you said. When speaking to it, I felt that I was in the presence of an emotionless dispassionate god, that had made a fairly bleak and clinical analysis of our puny irrelevant lives.

If one considers potential subterfuge on the part of the Catalyst, it seems all options presented could be traps. To me this does not seem like a useful road to go down.

So I picked the option with the least sacrifice, and the most potential for success: Control.

@Dr_Extrem
Someone else pointed this out, isn't taking the epilogue depicted into account meta-gaming? Shouldn't we judge the ending based on what is presented by the Catalyst?

@Anyone
Assuming there is an absolute ethical standard, can an action irrespective of intent be unethical?

Obviously, there are some actions whose ethical determination is based on intent:
- Stating something false  (lying vs ignorance)
- Homicide (murder vs self-defense)
Are there some actions that are just always unethical or immoral?

I'm sorry, but Destroy is the one with the most potental for sucess in this abrbatrary Deus Ex. It would be the instant first choice, if not for the price being genocide.
Control is....Well.....
Building an A.I. God, giving it full control of the Reapers - an entire RACE of giant living death-gods, a vid-diary of Shepards memories, and just basically telling it "Protect all life, forever, for no other reason then the fact that I, who am about to die, tell you to. Even though:
(Paragon: Say that all beings should do what they think is right, and that would pertain to you, so you don't HAVE to be shackled to me if you REALLT don't want to.)
(Renagade: The only way to make sure everyone gets along is to force them to, weather they like it or not, and if they complain, harvest them.)
and just HOPE it does what you tell it to for all of eternity....
It doesn't really give one much to rest easy on. If anything, it has a higer potental for failure.

And this statement:
Obviously, there are some actions whose ethical determination is based on intent:
- Stating something false  (lying vs ignorance)
- Homicide (murder vs self-defense)
Are there some actions that are just always unethical or immoral?
Genocide, for one. Racisim as another. Supremicsim as well, although that last one is debatible.

[Obadiah]

silverexile17s wrote...

And this statement:
Obviously, there are some actions whose ethical determination is based on intent:
- Stating something false  (lying vs ignorance)
- Homicide (murder vs self-defense)
Are there some actions that are just always unethical or immoral?
Genocide, for one. Racisim as another. Supremicsim as well, although that last one is debatible.

The question was "Assuming there is an absolute ethical standard, can an action irrespective of intent be unethical?"

While I agree your examples are all unethical, all use "intent" in their definition.

Modifié par Obadiah, 03 novembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[Redbelle]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

And this statement:
Obviously, there are some actions whose ethical determination is based on intent:
- Stating something false  (lying vs ignorance)
- Homicide (murder vs self-defense)
Are there some actions that are just always unethical or immoral?
Genocide, for one. Racisim as another. Supremicsim as well, although that last one is debatible.

The question was "Assuming there is an absolute ethical standard, can an action irrespective of intent be unethical?"

While I agree your examples are all unethical, all use "intent" in their definition.

Just so I’m clear, are you arguing that the context of the ending was such that your Shep felt justified in committing genocide?

Felt as in feeling? Well that's more down to the individual player.

Playing it by the numbers though. The Reapers will harvest more people than Shep will end in Destroy. Not saying it's morally right to commit genocide of a species. Just that wiping out the Reapers at the cost of the Geth makes sense long term when cost/benefit analysis is applied.

Of course Shepard would probably never be able to look at himself in the mirror again, but since BW seem to insist he's dead dispite "that" breath scene............. looks like they didn't want their hero around to face the music of his/her actions.

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
I gave a direct answer to what the possible messages were in the final decision as it was presented (not "intended"), given certain possible interpretations of events, and I said in my judgement they are all true.

Neither you nor anyone else has sought to dispute the truth of these messages... yet.

Since I don't see the endings as atrocities, but as sacrifices, I don't find the message in the game cynical at all. I find "Sacrifices can be committed ethically" realist. Though I didn't applaud the ending in my original post, I will now because I found the ending deeply thought-provoking. In fact, I find discussing it (when I'm not stuck in an endless yes/no loop with someone) deeply thought-provoking.

I didn't say whether the ending was engineered or not, since you previously stipulated that such messages can be unintentional and accidental.

So, I believe your points are something like:
1) "Atrocities can be committed ethically" is a cynical vision - ?
2) If Bioware intentionally engineered the ending with the above specific message(1) then:
2a) That rewards those with no morals qualms - TRUE
2b) That punishes those who hold the commitment of atrocities as inexcusable inherent crime - TRUE (see 2d)
2c) That forces players to re-negotiate the boundaries of their ethics - FALSE
2d) Their purpose is to muddy the beliefs of those who hold to ethics and morality that state such violations are egregious - TRUE and ?

I say (1) is questionable given this definition of "cynical" on google: Believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity. "Self-interest" is a fairly nebulous term (does it mean the individual, those the individual cares about). Since Shepard is dead in three of the four options the narrow definition of self-interest does not seem to apply. I think if you define the terms of "cynical" that you are using the point would be easier to judge.

I say (2c) is false given the counterexample of (2a), and another group not mentioned: people who already believed "Atrocities can be committed ethically". Perhaps both of these groups are the same?

As for (2a) is a game developer really supposed to tailor it's moral message to not reinforce or reward the beliefs of people with no moral qualms? Honestly, I'm going to have to admit to an eye-roll on that one and move on.

I say (2d) is true, however, since you have not disputed that "Atrocities can be committed ethically", this seems like a false set of ethics that the player held. Also the ? is there only because of the word "muddy" which implies further intention. It could be an attempt at propaganda to impose their beliefs. It might be there to instill further discussion, though I know you, and others that feel their beliefs muddied, do not believe that.

Now, as far as I can tell the problem with the whole of section 2 is obvious, these points are contingent on the premise of Bioware intentionally engineering the ending with the specific message of (1). Is that something you believe?

So, this was an ethics thread, what are we discussing?
1) Intentions of the game developer? That kind of speculation will likely get the thread locked.
2) Is it a true statement that "atrocities can be committed ethically"? Hmmm, again, extended discussion of this in the abstract will likely get the thread locked.
3) Are Synthesis, Control, Destroy, and Refuse actions that Shepard can ethically select from (seems like everyone agrees that is a "yes")
4) Were Synthesis, Control, Destroy, and Refuse an ethical selection of options from the developer? Not sure how to discuss that further given it is contingent on the message the devs intended and the message the player perceived. Or perhaps it is not? Could be unethical given all possible options of both messages?

[EDITED]

Firstly, I cannot speak for your ethics, but yes, I would like to strenuously disagree that one can perform genocide, eugenic purgation, or become a galactic overlord 'ethically'. And to entirely shift the onus of blame onto the Cataylst by manipulating the notion of sacrifice is little more than declaring 'The devil made me do it', and invalidates this entire discussion.

While I am glad for you that you found some meaning in the ending (and while I am slightly more concerned that it seems to have delighted your morality), it most certainly did not do anything of the sort for me, and I do not find it any kind of valid exploration of ethics at all – merely an arbitrary hypothetical that forces a cheap surrender.

So for you Mass Effect 3 seems to ultimately be about how well you can rationalise a 'sacrificial' atrocity? How easily can such an action fit within your ethics? 

I'm sure you realise that this was precisely what the Reapers have done for countless eons.  They believed that crimes against others (forcing those unwilling 'sacrifices' you speak of upon the innocent), ultimately do not matter; they can – just as you suggest – be excused, because it is all just for the greater good.

I'm therefore not sure what that says of the genius of Bioware's opus if all it achieves is to compel us to accept the reasoning of our enemies. To reassure ourselves that as long it is we and not the 'bad guys' that are performing horrors upon one another then it all washes out okay...

So please do explain some of the deeply thought provoking realisations that you have come to in discussing the ending elsewhere. (And if that sounds sarcastic, it really was not meant to.) I genuinely have not heard anyone give an explanation for what has been revealed to them through these final actions beyond the starting premise that it is about 'confronting one's own ethics' (in a thoroughly arbitrary hypothetical); and frankly, a lot of those descriptions consist of little more than first year philosophy major's angsty, existential vagary.

Because great: it's about forcing the player to confront what sacrosanct beliefs they are willing to forfeit in the name of survival... 

...So what?

What does that say about anything, except that – gun to their heads – people will buckle and reason away the rights of others? Is it really just about revealing that ethics are merely subservient to survival?

I really can't think of anything more boring.

Modifié par drayfish, 04 novembre 2012 - 12:14 .

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
I saw "sacrifice" in the ending, not "sacrificial atrocities". Even so, this did force me to examine the boundaries of my ethical beliefs. I have no problem with that.

For the purposes of moving the discussion forward I stipulated that the ending options were atrocities to explore the ramifications of that. The logical conclusion of that stipulation was, "Atrocities can be committed ethically."

Perhaps a better way of stating it is "An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity." Here the "decision" and "atrocity" are sepearate and distinct, and perhaps some ethical standard and judgement can be applied to either spearately.

I didn't say "The Reapers had committed an atrocity ethically." Let me just explore that briefly. There are all sorts of problems with the Catalyst's rationale. The basic one is that hostility and conflict between different groups with is to be expected. Though there may be some ethical standard to avoid conflict where possible, is there some ethical standard to avoid or stop a conflict between two specific groups at the cost of the all of the lives of both groups? Of course not.

In Mass Effect, the only reason the Catalyst has that directive is that it was given by the Leviathan to maintain tribute. Though there may have been some notion of self preservation on the part of Leviathan when the directive was given, there is no notion of self-defense or self-preservation in the Catalyst's rationale and execution. It certainly is not a military attack of proportional response. It is a directive taken to an extreme. I think everyone that heard the Catalyst understood that. It's an unethical motivation gone awry. Hence the Catalyst's decision is unethical.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Shepard however, depending on how the player role plays him, is trying to defend himself, his loved ones, his race, his society, and/or life itself.

The statement "An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity" was predicated on your previous statement that Shepard was justified in making a decision. Are you now saying the Shepard's justification was unethical, or that Shepard was not justified?

With respect to Shepard accepting the philosophy of the Reapers: if some notion happens to be true it really doesn't matter who accepts it - it would be true regardless. The Reapers are Shepard's enemy and have to be stopped.

drayfish wrote...
...
What does that say about anything, except that – gun to their heads – people will buckle and reason away the rights of others? Is it really just about revealing that ethics are merely subservient to survival?
...

I don't know if that's the message or if that's really a universal truth. People have died rather than compromise their beliefs before. Indeed, if Shepard does believe the options given by the Catalyst violates his beliefs, the EC now allows Shepard to select death. I suppose it is more non-specific: "People can be made to reason away the rights of others."

[EDITED]

Modifié par Obadiah, 04 novembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Element_Zero]

Alright I'm going to touch on this one more time. Then push away from the table again. While I've stated in my prior posting a variation of my thoughts on the endings. . .

Ok, ok. Well before this becomes a wall of text again, I'll try to be brief.

My biggest issue with each one of these endings it that they tend to push forth concepts that sociopathic killing is fine. And if you read various postings about how this ending is better than that one . . . That by far is something no one should ever aspire for and also why I find these endings so dam abhorrent and bothersome.

What is even more ugly to me is that the writers willingness to put this concept out there within a large potential group of people who may not fully understand this nor are willing to acknowledge the problems with those endings because there too busy trying to justifiy them and solidify their argument for a outcome.

So for me the endings represent the ultimate loss and thus are pointless and meaningless. The consequences of the way those endings were written left me wondering why I played or even participated in the story. Especially since I spent most of the game trying to achieve something better or at the vary least prevent the Catalyst's endgame. With those endings however that just isn't possible. And these things do go against how stories are typically told.

Even the Catalyst itself represents a sociopath that quite frankly bugs the hell out of me. With those endings it ment I had to more or less step into those shoes to achieve what?

Ok I've said enough here. . . Time to step away again before this gets too long.

[Ieldra]

silverexile17s wrote...

Ultranovae wrote...

Also, for all replies (I wish I could quote but it quite tricky to do from a phone) it seems that the point that synthesis kills genetic diversity is not a very good one.
From what I see, the species don't look the same. Their genetic code just seems re-written to have this single common characteristic, the whole entirety of their genetic code seems otherwise a unaltered.
In other words, there seems to be plenty if genetic diversity, Krogan babies are still the same, humans are still human looking. If all DNA were the same everyone would be exactly the same.
But yeah, it's true, everyone would definitely be forced to a huge change which though seemingly beneficial, forces a change on all organic and synthetic beings throwing them into a future of uncertain possibilities.
I really think that the gloominess which most people chose to view the endings is exaggerated. There are benefits and sacrifices, and bringing the end to not just a war but a cycle of such destruction indeed should require some compromises. Otherwise, we would end up having a fairy tale, Disney ending. A tale such as Mass effect deserves better than such inconsequential ending.

Not true. It completely rewrites the genetic code down to the cellular level, making all beings similar, and geneticly compatable.

So? Where did you get that information from? The exposition doesn't even say the change is actually on the genetic level....

(example: I highly doubt that dextro-levo amino acid problem still exists, allowing limitless cross-breading. THAT requires alteration of genetics that basically makes all beings fundamentally the same). They LOOK the same, but on the cellular level, it's a different stroy.

You mean, just as, on the cellular level, all organic species are looking pretty much the same right now - because, you know, it's all DNA, proteins and such. And that assertion of limitless cross-breeding - where did you get *that* from?

[Dr_Extrem]

Element_Zero wrote...

Alright I'm going to touch on this one more time. Then push away from the table again. While I've stated in my prior posting a variation of my thoughts on the endings. . .

Ok, ok. Well before this becomes a wall of text again, I'll try to be brief.

My biggest issue with each one of these endings it that they tend to push forth concepts that sociopathic killing is fine. And if you read various postings about how this ending is better than that one . . . That by far is something no one should ever aspire for and also why I find these endings so dam abhorrent and bothersome.

What is even more ugly to me is that the writers willingness to put this concept out there within a large potential group of people who may not fully understand this nor are willing to acknowledge the problems with those endings because there too busy trying to justifiy them and solidify their argument for a outcome.

So for me the endings represent the ultimate loss and thus are pointless and meaningless. The consequences of the way those endings were written left me wondering why I played or even participated in the story. Especially since I spent most of the game trying to achieve something better or at the vary least prevent the Catalyst's endgame. With those endings however that just isn't possible. And these things do go against how stories are typically told.

Even the Catalyst itself represents a sociopath that quite frankly bugs the hell out of me. With those endings it ment I had to more or less step into those shoes to achieve what?

Ok I've said enough here. . . Time to step away again before this gets too long.

in all endings shepard trades in societies "humanity" (turianity, asarienity ect.) for its possible survival.

the writers may want to show us, that sacrafices have to be made - but that leaves a foul taste. it only shows, that it does not matter how hard you try, you will have to accept it or face obliteration.

in the end the massage is: "you dont need to try to do good - it wont matter anyway" and that is the worst massage anyone can convey.

[Obadiah]

Well, what is the moral and ethical implications of making that choice? Was the:
- Choice immoral and unethical?
- Action immoral and unethical?

If Destroy is an atrocity (or pick the option that you think is an atrocity) and Shepard made and ethical choice, I've already stated the logical conclusion: An ethical decision can be made to commit an atrocity.

Modifié par Obadiah, 04 novembre 2012 - 07:05 .