530 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

You are using the Crucible, at the child's instruction, to 'solve' his problem. This is the way that the writers expressly structured this narrative. That is the whole reason we get the expositional data-dump of the Catalyst and are told how the Crucible functions.

No matter what Shepard picks, she proves herself capable of 'doing what needs to be done' to stop the war from happening. She has built a weapon of immeasurable influence, and shows that she is willing to use genocide, mind-control or mutation to stop a conflict she now knows is coming. The universe doesn't need two Catalysts, so the original steps aside.

And at no point have I called any of the writers racist. That is an inexcusable accusation. I am saying that the conclusion of the text posits a needlessly and unavoidably intolerant message. I would certainly hope that it was never completely knowingly the writer's intention to make such a statement - especially considering that the preceding three games worth of content made precisely the opposite message: that inclusivity and respect were cherished in this universe (until the end).

Modifié par drayfish, 01 novembre 2012 - 11:48 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 War is not clean, and not for the faint-of-heart. Ethics are minimal in it.


The ending merely has you decide between collateral damage, biowarfare, and occupation as to how you end that war.

[jstme]

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

You choose from options presented by Catalyst according to the information given by Catalyst. Also, at no point in time Shepard somehow interract with the crucible without reaper creator that controls those doomsday machines acting as a mediator.   
If this is not a justification for speculation that Catalyst is manipulating Shepard - i do not know what is. Catalyst is never shown to be destroyed by the way,and reapers are just irrelevant pawns in ME3.
Also, i do not think that drayfish claimed that writers were deliberately racists. What i get from the post is that the writers simply ignored moral values in all RGB endings in order to make the final choice artificially hard and grimdark.
  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Fandango9641 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 War is not clean, and not for the faint-of-heart. Ethics are minimal in it.


The ending merely has you decide between collateral damage, biowarfare, and occupation as to how you end that war.

Yep, and some people are nothing like willing to accept that disgusting message!

What other reality do you reject? Human history?

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 01 novembre 2012 - 11:51 .

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 War is not clean, and not for the faint-of-heart. Ethics are minimal in it.


The ending merely has you decide between collateral damage, biowarfare, and occupation as to how you end that war.

Yep, and some people are nothing like willing to accept that disgusting message!

What other reality do you reject? Human history?

Are you asking us to repeat history?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Are you asking us to repeat history?

When appropriate, yes. History teaches many lessons: learn from mistakes, learn from success.

[jstme]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 War is not clean, and not for the faint-of-heart. Ethics are minimal in it.


The ending merely has you decide between collateral damage, biowarfare, and occupation as to how you end that war.

Now i get it. Endings are nothing more then Biowarefare. 
How can anyone actually  like to be forced to choose between collateral genocide ,mind occupation and complete rewriting of biology is beyond me.You actually prefer to choose from what is there now over cliche heroic victory?
Maybe there should be a ME3 test for every politician and top military. You like the endings - out of the office.  

Modifié par jstme, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:03 .

[Obadiah]

When considering the ethics of the final choice, the Catalyst's rationale is irrelevant.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
You are using the Crucible, at the child's instruction, to 'solve' his problem. This is the way that the writers expressly structured this narrative. That is the whole reason we get the expositional data-dump of the Catalyst and are told how the Crucible functions.

No matter what Shepard picks, she proves herself capable of 'doing what needs to be done' to stop the war from happening. She has built a weapon of immeasurable influence, and shows that she is willing to use genocide, mind-control or mutation to stop a conflict she now knows is coming. The universe doesn't need two Catalysts, so the original steps aside.

And at no point have I called any of the writers racist. That is an inexcusable accusation. I am saying that theconclusion of the text posits a needlessly and unavoidably intolerant message. I would certainly hope that it was never completely knowingly the writer's intention to make such a statement - especially considering that the preceding three games worth of content made precisely the opposite message: that inclusivity and respect were cherished in this universe (until the end).

So you're basically calling the writers stupid instead.  The writers who provided the ME universe and made constant, constant references to the sanctity of synthetic life - whose charcaters repeatedly converse with you about the relaitive merits of synthetic life.  

You're now claiming that they just forgot this all of a sudden?  Perhaps you are also under the impression that writers write the story in the order we see it?  So they clearly wrote the ending last because it's the last thing we see?

The whole thing is a narrative work that took 8 years to finish.  I can't belive that people can somehow think that the writers wove all these ideas into the narrative in way that was thoughtfully done, yet somehow negelcted all this during whatever time they wrote the endings.  Can't you see how ridiculous this suggestion is?

jstme wrote...
If this is not a justification for speculation that Catalyst is manipulating Shepard - i do not know what is. Catalyst is never shown to be destroyed by the way,and reapers are just irrelevant pawns in ME3.

What?  Yes the Child is manipulating Shepard.  Imo it's an indoctrination attempt but tbh that's irrelevant.  It doesn't change the fact that Shepard has to make a choice as to how to stop the Reapers.  That choice is not racist and I think it's unbelievably disrespectful to claim that it even resembles racism.  Take a look at how racism operates in real life and how disgusting it is, then come back and say that the writers are being racist, unintentionally or not.  

Honestly I get that some people didn't like the ending, but the levels of ridiculousness that people will go to to justify their opinion on the matter is at times absolutely pathetic.  And this is from presumably well-educated people too, or perhaps even people in a position to be educating others.  

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:25 .

[drayfish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Are you asking us to repeat history?

When appropriate, yes. History teaches many lessons: learn from mistakes, learn from success.

Genocide; totalitarianism; eugenics = 'success'.

Great.

I'm glad that Mass Effect could function as a hypothetical endorsement of total moral relativity for you - for others is was a good deal else.  And if the whole purpose of the series was to build players up to believe in hope and fellowship, only to force them to abandon it in the interests of a nihilistic self-preservation, then to me it stands as ultimately a grim, callous ride with not much of worth to say about what we were meant to be fighting for in the first place.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:11 .

[2Shepards]

drayfish wrote...

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.

By ensuring that the game cannot be 'won' without the player accepting the flawed, racist logic of the Catalyst (we can never all get along anyway, so we have to be fundamentally changed, controlled or killed by an extenrnal force against our will), and by making it implicit that wars can only be ended by using crimes that violate basic human rights like autonomy and freedom, yes, Bioware in their fiction are making thematic statement.

You may agree or disagree with the premise Bioware has put forward, but to pretend that they are not making a thematic declaration, to dismiss it as 'just a game', or that the characters are just free-associating, is to fail to engage with the text as it intends, and undermines all of that 'artistic integrity' that people were bleating on about after the game's release.

Here here!

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...
You are using the Crucible, at the child's instruction, to 'solve' his problem. This is the way that the writers expressly structured this narrative. That is the whole reason we get the expositional data-dump of the Catalyst and are told how the Crucible functions.

No matter what Shepard picks, she proves herself capable of 'doing what needs to be done' to stop the war from happening. She has built a weapon of immeasurable influence, and shows that she is willing to use genocide, mind-control or mutation to stop a conflict she now knows is coming. The universe doesn't need two Catalysts, so the original steps aside.

And at no point have I called any of the writers racist. That is an inexcusable accusation. I am saying that theconclusion of the text posits a needlessly and unavoidably intolerant message. I would certainly hope that it was never completely knowingly the writer's intention to make such a statement - especially considering that the preceding three games worth of content made precisely the opposite message: that inclusivity and respect were cherished in this universe (until the end).

So your basically calling nthe writers stupid instead.  The writers who provided the ME universe and made constant, constant references to the sanctity of synthetic life - whose charcaters repeatedly converse with you about the relaitive merits of synthetic life
.  You're now claiming that they just forgot this all of a sudden?  Perhaps you are also under the impression that writers write the story in the order we see it?  So they clearly wrote the ending last because it's the last thing we see?

The whole thing is a narrative work that took 8 yeasr to finish.  I can't belive that people can somehow think that the writers wove all these ideas into the narrative in way that was thoughtfully done, yet somehow negelcted all this during whatever time they wrote the endings.  Can't you see how ridiculous this suggestion is?

jstme wrote...
If this is not a justification for speculation that Catalyst is manipulating Shepard - i do not know what is. Catalyst is never shown to be destroyed by the way,and reapers are just irrelevant pawns in ME3.

What?  Yes the Child is manipulating Shepard.  Imo it's an indoctrination attempt but tbh that's irrelevant.  It doesn't change the fact that Shepard has to make a choice as to how to stop the Reapers.  That choice is not racist and I think it's unbelievably disrespectful to claim that it even resembles racism.  Take a look at how racism operates in real life and how disgusting it is, then come back and say that the writers are being racist, unintentionally or not.  

Honestly I get that some people didn't like the ending, but the levels of ridiculousness that people will go to to justify their opinion on the matter is at times absolutely pathetic.  And this is from presumably well-educated people too, or perhaps even people in a position to be educating others.  

Firstly, your barely-veiled insult aside, yes, I am saying that I very much hope they were unaware of the message their fiction was proffering. And while I am glad that you have head-canoned an IT reading over the events at the end of the game, for some of us who do not subscribe to that theory, the narrative posits and excuses some disturbing subject matter - and pretending that it is not there, pretending that completely abandoning one's principles and allies is the same as 'winning', is precisely the kind of ethical compromise that allows ugly, intolerant social behaviour to flourish.  If we can convince ourselves (and our fictions celebratorially re-enforce), that the rights of others are less important than achieving some 'greater goal', any number of inexcusable injustices can be happily ignored.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can't see that my complaints are a direct extension of the 'worthy' elements in the preceding games that you cite here.  I agree - the writers went to great efforts throughout ME1, 2 and most of 3 to validate synthetic life. I am, in fact, accepting them at their word that this life should be cherished - that we can live peacefully and respectfully alongside synthetics in a bold new civilisation (as the Geth and Quarians; as Joker and EDI can prove). So I find it deeply disturbing when the writers therefore present Shepard with a scenario that states:

'Nope, all that inclusivity and respect for each other crap won't fly. I'm the Catalyst and I know that mutual destruction is inevitable. So you have to solve my problem by killing Synthetics; mutating everyone to be the same (so that there is no more distinction); or taking my place as overlord watchdog of the galaxy.'
 

Modifié par drayfish, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[jstme]

Obadiah wrote...

When considering the ethics of the final choice, the Catalyst's rationale is irrelevant.

Given that all your info about consequences of the final choice comes from Catalyst ,without metagaming your statement is false.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

jstme wrote...

How can anyone actually  like to be forced to choose between collateral genocide ,mind occupation and complete rewriting of biology is beyond me.

"Many decisions lie ahead, none of them easy."

That's from a ME1 trailer. Mostly bogus, this trilogy is so clean it squeaks. But I've always enjoyed the aspect of it where I have to do more than just shoot people and blow things up like those linear SHOOTAN games I don't play. There's a mental game involved as well. And *that* is what I liked - not the actions specifically, but just the dilemma at hand.

In fact, by the end of Rannoch I remember thinking to myself "Things are going well. Too well."

Try playing a ME3 game without an import. It really sets the tone. Genocide is actually the logical course of action in one place. It is an inevitablity in another. Sacrifice abounds as you seldom have the means to stop it. That's a war.

You actually prefer to choose from what is there now over cliche heroic victory?

Dude, you just called it cliche.

Given that word choice, of course not.

Cliche, by definition, is lousy.

Maybe there should be a ME3 test for every politician and top military. You like the endings - out of the office.

On the contrary, we need a voting populace that's smart enough to elect politicians who do their job well, not ones who say what the people want to hear.

This is a prime example of that. "You didn't like ME3? You have my vote!"

This is how crooks get elected: say what they want to hear, and you'll get in office (then rinse-and-repeat for re-election).

[Biokiipper]

Obadiah wrote...

The endings are meant to be an ethical compromise - they are meant to test the players' resolve and have each of us weigh what we find more important.

Destroy: Ethical dilemma is obvious. Does the threat of Reapers continued existence justify the massive collateral damage? If this is the player's only option (low EMS) , is it ethical to refuse this given the continued mass murder that will take place?

Synthesis: Upgrade all life in the galaxy without asking consent. I get that some people may want to delegate that decision to some vote or to each individual, but those options aren't always available when the opportunity arises. Is it ethical to allow such an opportunity to pass simply because this uncaring Catalyst god has offered it (assuming it is telling the truth). For myself the only reason I don't pick it is that I find the whole notion of a chain reaction that upgrades or leads to a new DNA rather far fetched and silly.

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.

I didnt like 100% the endings. Id like to see Sheppard alive (human), but I pretty much agree with you. The ends were meant to test our beliefs and choose what seems less wrong or easier to live with. Thats the bittersweet end Bioware mentioned, I guess. The bitter part is the death or transformation of Sheppard, in my opinion. I find the control option acceptable because of that. Since Sheppard made MY decisions and I dont want to die, I control the reapers to continue protecting life as I did as human.

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
Firstly, your barely-veiled insult aside, yes, I am saying that I very much hope they were unaware of the message their fiction was proffering. And while I am glad that you have head-canoned an IT reading over the events at the end of the game, for some of us who do not subscribe to that theory, the narrative posits and excuses some disturbing subject matter - and pretending that it is not there; pretending that completely abandoning one's principles and allies is the same as 'winning' is precisely the kind of ethical compromise that allows ugly, intolerant social behaviour to flourish.  If we can convince ourselves (and our fictions celebratorially re-enforce), that the rights of others are less important than achieving some 'greater goal', any number of inexcusable injustices can be happily brushed aside.

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can't see that my complaints are a direct extension of the 'worthy' elements in the preceding games that you cite here.  I agree - the writers went to great efforts throughout ME1, 2 and most of 3 to validate synthetic life. I am, in fact, accepting them at their word that this life should be cherished - that we can live peacefully and respectfully alongside synthetics in a bold new civilisation (as the Geth and Quarians; as Joker and EDI can prove). So I find it deeply disturbing when the writers therefore present Shepard with a scenario that states: 

'Nope, all that inclusivity and respect for each other crap won't fly. I'm the Catalyst and I know that mutual destruction is inevitable. So you have to solve my problem by killing Synthetics; mutating everyone to be the same (so that there is no more distinction); or taking my place as watchdog of the galaxy.' 

Explain to me how they understand the subject so well that they put it delicately for so much of the game and then somehow fail at the ending, which is one of the most important parts of the game.  Rather than claiming it, explain to me exactly how anyone could do that.  Please bear in mind that you do not write the ending at the cronological end of the writing process.

Then explain to me how even months after the game came out, they saw their 'mistake' but still didn't change it with the EC.

My idea of the end is not IT.  Indoctrination plays a part - of course it does.  You spend the last 10 minutes before the decision chamber talking to TIM about Indoctrination causing him to think he can control the Reapers.  You are then presented with the option to control the Reapers.  I suppose this went over the writers' heads too, right?  Is that honestly what you think?

I already said "you're not doing the child's bidding", but clearly I have to go over this again.  You're not "using the Crucible to solve [the child's] problem".  You're using the Crucible to stop the Reapers.  He's trying to convince you to not destroy the Reapers, but what he wants is irrelevant.  You can choose to use it or not.  If you don't, everybody dies.  That's really all there is to it.

And you can construe what I said as an insult if you want, but what I was trying to get across is how stunned I am that someone who is in a position of educating others would spend their spare time trying to convince people that Bioware, through their own stupidity, have released a game that indirectly preaches racial hatred.  It is one of the most arrogant things I have ever seen or read, not to mention disrespectful to all those who have suffered as a consequence of racial actions, motives, hate speech, racist regimes, or any form of racism at all.  You have crossed the line and damn right I'm angry.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

drayfish wrote...

Genocide; totalitarianism; eugenics = 'success'.

Great.

I'm glad that Mass Effect could function as a hypothetical endorsement of total moral relativity for you - for others is was a good deal else.  And if the whole purpose of the series was to build players up to believe in hope and fellowship, only to force them to abandon it in the interests of a nihilistic self-preservation, then to me it stands as ultimately a grim, callous ride with not much of worth to say about what we were meant to be fighting for in the first place.

Morality doesn't exist in a vaccum.

Is it bad to lie? Yes. Is it bad to lie to an evil person to save your life? Not so much.

Moreover, your morality isn't lost forever for that lie, either.

Life goes on after it's all said and done (except Refuse ending). The galaxy broke free of a threat that haunted them and threatened everyone's lives. Whatever the Reapers' motives were is irrelevant at their defeat. There's no nihilism in that.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:46 .

[Obadiah]

jstme wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

When considering the ethics of the final choice, the Catalyst's rationale is irrelevant.

Given that all your info about consequences of the final choice comes from Catalyst ,without metagaming your statement is false.

So go ahead and make a ethical statment on the endings that is not contingent on having seen the epilogue.

[DirtySHISN0]

You have no reason to believe the destroy option will kill the reapers, from each catalyst description there is no good decision to be made. Each a bad decision based on preference.
Even the refuse option isn't worth choosing, it completely undermines your efforts for 3 games.

There is no correct ending to be chosen, only choices based on diminished responsibility, relevance and your feelings towards informed consent. (characteristics not mutually exclusive to a single ending)

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[jstme]

Obadiah wrote...

jstme wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

When considering the ethics of the final choice, the Catalyst's rationale is irrelevant.

Given that all your info about consequences of the final choice comes from Catalyst ,without metagaming your statement is false.

So go ahead and make a ethical statment on the endings that is not contingent on having seen the epilogue.

Easy.The only ethical ending in this case is refusing the Catalyst.