530 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

To me, it's simple. Either the end is an indoctrination attempt, making it the natural and logical culmination of the 99.9% of the narrative leading up to it. Or it's a completely unearned abandonment/reversal of everything that preceded it, making it every bit as offensive as Drayfish claims.

I've decided that the writers actually knew what they were doing for the most part, and this is all some sort of social experiment. Or perhaps it is less an experiment and more a cynical money-grubbing ploy to get us to keep buying DLC. Either way, I don't believe that they got to the end of this venture and completely forgot everything about the Mass Effect universe.

[jstme]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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).

HVR 2.0.
This is a sci-fi video game. It is not real ,but it's plot is written by real people. Those people could write infinite number of different endings. Even the ending in which Shepard kills every reaper by beating them to death with feathers.If they would have let their imagination run even wilder - they could have written even synthesis ending.
Sarcasm aside, i can understand headcanoning people that make synthesis/control their personal utopia and thus enjoy the endings. I can even understand destroyers that are happy with destroy because to them it only offs some robots that are not alive anyway and Shepard maybe alive there so all good.
However understanding that all current endings to a certain fictional video game are against all previous narrative and morally abhorrent  and liking it for exactly that... Sorry, i cannot understand it. Not all wars end with genocide ,"biowarfare" or "mind control". Actually, only a few wars in Human history (and looooong ago) ended with one side almost totally wiping out the other.  Humanity since then understood that it is wrong ,even during the hell which is war.
 

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

I have to start by saying, none of my comments have ever been intended to make you (or indeed anyone) angry, and I find it sad that they have had that effect.  It was never my purpose in expressing (as a fan; not a teacher - you brought that up) what my response to this text was.  Having the capacity to discuss my reading of the game is a right that ownership of the game, free speech, and the BSN itself allow me; and while I do not take back, or apologise for having an opinion, it is unfortunate that somehow that has offended you.

Asking me to explain what the writers were thinking, however, is a ridiculous, and completely tangential exercise in futility.  Frankly, I have no idea what would have made you even pose such a question.  You keep speaking as though I am naming and shaming specific writers, dragging them out to Scarlet Letter them as monsters.  I am talking about what a text is communicating through its narrative and themes - whether it intended to celebrate such things at first or not - you trying to balloon that into some kind of witch hunt for specific people is ludicrous, and utterly disengenuous.

Did the makers of Breakfast at Tiffany's intend to be racist when they put Mickey Rooney in grotesque make-up and asked him to do that accent?  Was George Lucas trying to be racist when he made Jar-Jar Binks?  Writers make mistakes; creators often do not know how or what their work is communicating until they are well into its production.  Writers, filmakers, painters, frequently speak of the dicovery process of artistic creation.  You have a rather romantic notion of artistic creation in which the work plops, fully formed from the creator's head, but that is simply never the case.  That is why we have re-edits, test-screenings, and artistic revision.  If people do not respond with honest criticism then all we get is thoughtless regurgitation that peopel have to make excuses for after the fact.

And it is a little peculiar that you are lecturing to me that I cannot presume to know what the Catalyst wants at precisely the same moment that you are declaring that you know what he wants.  I am glad for you that indoctrination is somehow a key for unlocking the meaning at the heart of the conclusion, but chastising others for not seeing its majesty, and condemning them if they refuse to shut up because you don't like what they say, is in no way helpful. 

In any case, you are clearly far too upset to continue this discussion so I will wish you all the best, but respectfully bow out.

Again: I in no way meant to enrage you, but retain my right, as a fan, to have an opinion.

[drayfish]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

I'm not sure how 'telling a lie to an evil person' equates to 'genocide a friendly race of allies because that evil person said to'.

[Andres Hendrix]

First of all drayfish, you are making some great points and you should be lauded for it, so great work. Secondly I have a quote from one of my favorite writers, Christopher Hitchens, on Utopianism which I think sums up my points, and your excellent points quite well.

"The idea of a Utopian state on earth, perhaps modeled on some heavenly ideal, is very hard to efface and has led people to commit terrible crimes in the name of the ideal. One of the very first attempts to create such an ideal Edenic society, patterned on the scheme of human equality, was the totalitarian socialist state established by the Jesuit missionaries in Paraguay. It managed to combine the maximum of egalitarianism with the maximum of unfreedom, and could only be kept going by the maximum of fear. This ought to have been a warning to those who sought to perfect the human species. Yet the object of perfecting the species—which is the very root and source of the totalitarian impulse—is in essence a religious one." (-Christopher Hitchens- God is Not Great, p. 231-232)

The AI kid, was very much a quasi religious archetype. One that was portrayed to be 'all knowing' as it blah blahed itself away. As Hitchens pointed out, totalitarianism sparks out of someone inflicting their notion of perfection on someone else. The AI kid was made to be the absolutists unalterable visage of truth, when an AI is made to be 'the' solution then, their is an absolutism created (and presumably no one else gets to say otherwise lol). Thus we have three choices that reflect the totalitarian spark.

Destroy: Shepard destroys the Geth because the God child deemed synthetics and humans both unable to coexist. This ending also ignores modern just war theory.

Control: the god kid deems it proper that the minds of another sentient species (one which it has been using) are meant to be enslaved.

Synthesis: The totalitarian Big Brother (or should I say little brother?) deems synthetics and organics icky therefore they must be made 'perfect' in a way the AI god kid deems proper.

A good question was brought up by Estelindis , "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?"

I would like to add to this, question: "The AI being a thing that developed a cycle of genocide, (and is seemingly content with continuing it) should give us a moment of pause to think what its reasoning is. Well we are told what that reasoning is, synthetics according to the AI kill organics, thus “the intelligent organics who make those synthetics must be destroyed in cycles of mass killings” (icky and inane). Well of course the AI being a synthetic intelligence (SI), one
that created a genocidal cycle of killing would mean as long as the AI (SI) survives, its own “solution” killing of organics will continue. Therefore, Casper’s logic is doltish."

"The Quarian and Geth compromise is very important..."

"We do not know how close the prior species were to a compromise with the synthetics they created, all we know is that the Repers due to an SI killed them. We do not know what reality was like for those destroyed species, because in true “Ministry of Truth Fashion” the Reapers destroy the history along with the species (however, the Reapers did not totally destroy the history of the Prothians). If the epoch in the ME3 universe had a compromise with the Geth and Quarians, how close were the other species to such a compromise, before the Reapers kicked up the cycle? Under the jackboot of the Reapers, there is no compromise. All the choices are forced, you cannot say, ‘AI kid I know how to stop a genocidal synthetic, go kill yourself AI jerk!’ Instead, you control, destroy, synthesize or become just another blip in the cycle. Destroy is an ending that carries a consequence of harming the Geth, I cannot remember what happens to the Geth in the extended destroy ending, but the destroy ending is the only ending which means the end for the reapers and “Casper”. How is Shepard to trust the AI that maintains such stupid logic? " I think the AI kid was the problem in the first place, when one intelligence is made to be the only solution then there is a lack of diversity. And as we should all know, diversity is very important for survival.Orwell pointed out the dangers of absolute conformity, and if people have not read the classic 1984 I would highly suggest a read of it. Or one needs only look at North Korea, (a place where even the parrots in the zoo supposedly squawk "all hail the dear leader") so as to understand the banal, yet frightening aspect of absolute conformity.Lastly I do not like any of the ME3 endings, and think that they should be forever known as how not to end a great series. lol

http://social.biowar.../index/13726613

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 02 novembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...
I have to start by saying, none of my comments have ever been intended to make you (or indeed anyone) angry, and I find it sad that they have had that effect.  It was never my purpose in expressing (as a fan; not a teacher - you brought that up) what my response to this text was.  Having the capacity to discuss my reading of the game is a right that ownership of the game, free speech, and the BSN itself allow me; and while I do not take back, or apologise for having an opinion, it is unfortunate that somehow that has offended you.

Asking me to explain what the writers were thinking, however, is a ridiculous, and completely tangential exercise in futility.  Frankly, I have no idea what would have made you even pose such a question.  You keep speaking as though I am naming and shaming specific writers, dragging them out to Scarlet Letter them as monsters.  I am talking about what a text is communicating through its narrative and themes - whether it intended to celebrate such things at first or not - you trying to balloon that into some kind of witch hunt for specific people is ludicrous, and utterly disengenuous.

Did the makers of Breakfast at Tiffany's intend to be racist when they put Mickey Rooney in grotesque make-up and asked him to do that accent?  Was George Lucas trying to be racist when he made Jar-Jar Binks?  Writers make mistakes; creators often do not know how or what their work is communicating until they are well into its production.  Writers, filmakers, painters, frequently speak of the dicovery process of artistic creation.  You have a rather romantic notion of artistic creation in which the work plops, fully formed from the creator's head, but that is simply never the case.  That is why we have re-edits, test-screenings, and artistic revision.  If people do not respond with honest criticism then all we get is thoughtless regurgitation that peopel have to make excuses for after the fact.

And it is a little peculiar that you are lecturing to me that I cannot presume to know what the Catalyst wants at precisely the same moment that you are declaring that you know what he wants.  I am glad for you that indoctrination is somehow a key for unlocking the meaning at the heart of the conclusion, but chastising others for not seeing its majesty, and condemning them if they refuse to shut up because you don't like what they say, is in no way helpful. 

In any case, you are clearly far too upset to continue this discussion so I will wish you all the best, but respectfully bow out.

Again: I in no way meant to enrage you, but retain my right, as a fan, to have an opinion.

To be expected.  You make no attempt to answer any of the questions that I posed.  You use racism as a buzzword to support your opinion on the ending and its flaws.  Then you scuttle away.  How exactly I am lecturing you about the Child is beyond me.  What does this have to do with what the Child wants?  It's about Shepard using the Crucible.

I would ask that you answer the things I asked, but it's clear you'd rather use the second point as an excuse to bail.  These ideas of chastising and majesty... what are you talking about?  Instead of using fanciful words, try using clear logic.  But somehow I suspect that if I do get any response to this, it will be another attempt at escaping with integrity intact by using fancy words to disguise a confused message where you are combing my separate points into one point.

Like the ending or not, I don't care.  But claiming the game is indirectly racist in dealing with one of its main themes, and then claiming the writers simply didn't notice, just to back up your own opinion, is stooping seriously low.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 novembre 2012 - 01:55 .

[silverexile17s]

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.

I agree. In the end, you feel like there is no way to 'win.' It feels like EVERY option makes you lose in one way, or another.
We fight to prove organics and synthetics can co-exist (Invaladated by Destroy)
We fight to prove we can exist without the existance of the Reapers (Invaladated by Control)
We fight to prove that we have the right to evolve our own sepeate, diverse ways, and don't need intervention by some god-power (Invaladated by Synthesis)
We fight to prove that we can stand alone and win our freedom from the cycles (now Invaladated by Refuse)

It's all SO bittersweet, it doesn't give you much incentive to replay.

[Davik Kang]

Andres Hendrix wrote...
Destroy: Shepard destroys the Geth because the God child deemed synthetics and humans both unable to coexist. This ending also ignores modern just war theory.

This is not why Shepard destroys the Geth.  Shepard has control of a weapon that can destroy the Reapers.  If she doesn't use it, everybody dies.  She has to use it, but according to the child, all synthetics will be affected.  Whatever happens at the end, Shepard is not choosing Destroy based on the "Child deeming organics and synthetics to be unable to coexist".  Seriously, this is basic logic.  If synthetics and organics cannot coexist, then Destroy dooms organic life to extinction.  Because the new synthetics will wipe out organics according to the Child's logic.

This isn't especially complicated.  This is the basic point. 

[silverexile17s]

drayfish wrote...

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 see your point - but again, that only works if you have ethics to compromise.

If a player faithfully believes that genocide, eugenics or totalitarian dictatorships are the bestest way to run the universe then this ending validates every ugly, racist, intolerant belief that they subscribe to - all while calling Shepard the greatest hero that ever lived.

If this really was about weighing up how much you are willing to sacrifice there was no reason to make Destroy about racial profiling (it could have just had a widespread but nonspecific death toll); Control need not have been based solely upon the word of the deceitful creature who has used this very same seduction of power on every other anti-hero in the narrative's lore, and ended with a dictatorial mission statement about policing the universe; and synthesis need not have been inflicted without choice upon every living being in an arrogant remaking of all life to the Reaper's approval.

Playing out each ending as a wholesale endorsement of these crimes as the only means of securing peace is highly disturbing indeed - particularly since the narrative up to that point had been an affirmation of fellowship, inclusivity and unity, all of which was jettisoned in service of doing the Catalyst's bidding.

Indeed.
Control: You are a hypocrite
Destroy: You are a genocidal mass murderer
Synthesis: You commit crimes aginst the basic rights and laws of living beings in general.
Refuse: You just plain give up.

[clennon8]

silverexile17s wrote...

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.

I agree. In the end, you feel like there is no way to 'win.' It feels like EVERY option makes you lose in one way, or another.
We fight to prove organics and synthetics can co-exist (Invaladated by Destroy)
We fight to prove we can exist without the existance of the Reapers (Invaladated by Control)
We fight to prove that we have the right to evolve our own sepeate, diverse ways, and don't need intervention by some god-power (Invaladated by Synthesis)
We fight to prove that we can stand alone and win our freedom from the cycles (now Invaladated by Refuse)

It's all SO bittersweet, it doesn't give you much incentive to replay.

I fought for the "Legend" popup at the end of the credits. Therefore, no matter what choice I make, I win! 

(guess whether I'm serious or not)

[drayfish]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...
I have to start by saying, none of my comments have ever been intended to make you (or indeed anyone) angry, and I find it sad that they have had that effect.  It was never my purpose in expressing (as a fan; not a teacher - you brought that up) what my response to this text was.  Having the capacity to discuss my reading of the game is a right that ownership of the game, free speech, and the BSN itself allow me; and while I do not take back, or apologise for having an opinion, it is unfortunate that somehow that has offended you.

Asking me to explain what the writers were thinking, however, is a ridiculous, and completely tangential exercise in futility.  Frankly, I have no idea what would have made you even pose such a question.  You keep speaking as though I am naming and shaming specific writers, dragging them out to Scarlet Letter them as monsters.  I am talking about what a text is communicating through its narrative and themes - whether it intended to celebrate such things at first or not - you trying to balloon that into some kind of witch hunt for specific people is ludicrous, and utterly disengenuous.

Did the makers of Breakfast at Tiffany's intend to be racist when they put Mickey Rooney in grotesque make-up and asked him to do that accent?  Was George Lucas trying to be racist when he made Jar-Jar Binks?  Writers make mistakes; creators often do not know how or what their work is communicating until they are well into its production.  Writers, filmakers, painters, frequently speak of the dicovery process of artistic creation.  You have a rather romantic notion of artistic creation in which the work plops, fully formed from the creator's head, but that is simply never the case.  That is why we have re-edits, test-screenings, and artistic revision.  If people do not respond with honest criticism then all we get is thoughtless regurgitation that peopel have to make excuses for after the fact.

And it is a little peculiar that you are lecturing to me that I cannot presume to know what the Catalyst wants at precisely the same moment that you are declaring that you know what he wants.  I am glad for you that indoctrination is somehow a key for unlocking the meaning at the heart of the conclusion, but chastising others for not seeing its majesty, and condemning them if they refuse to shut up because you don't like what they say, is in no way helpful. 

In any case, you are clearly far too upset to continue this discussion so I will wish you all the best, but respectfully bow out.

Again: I in no way meant to enrage you, but retain my right, as a fan, to have an opinion.

To be expected.  You make no attempt to answer any of the questions that I posed.  You use racism as a buzzword to support your opinion on the ending and its flaws.  Then you scuttle away.  How exactly I am lecturing you about the Child is beyond me.  What does this have to do with what the Child wants?  It's about Shepard using the Crucible.

I would ask that you answer the things I asked, but it's clear you'd rather use the second point as an excuse to bail.  These ideas of chastising and majesty... what are you talking about?  Instead of using fanciful words, try using clear logic.  But somehow I suspect that if I do get any response to this, it will be another attempt at escaping with integrity intact by using fancy words to disguide a confused message where you are combing my separate points into one point.

Like the ending or not, I don't care.  But claiming the game is indirectly racist in dealing with one of its main themes, and then claiming the writers simply didn't notice, just to back up your own opinion, is stooping seriously low.

'Scuttle away'; 'fancy words'; 'stooping seriously low'? At the risk of enflaming this further - which I honestly do not want to do - I would ask you to please calm down.

I was backing out of this (clearly antagonistic) discussion because you were claiming to be outraged, and genuinely upset that I - as a fan - dared offer a critique of the text that you did not like because it suggested there were some morally troubling implications in the narrative. Not only does that indicate that you are incapable of allowing opinions that differ from your own to be heard; but it suggests that there is literally no hope in my making you understand my position. Rather than infuriate you needlessly further I thought it better to try and move on...

Until you called me a chicken.  ...Dear gods.

As for your accusations: you asked no valid questions, and I answered what was possible without slipping into fantastical speculation - which I suspect now you are hoping I will do so that you can cry foul.

I have made it clear several times over that I neither presume to - nor wish to - imagine what was isn the writers' minds. It is literally impossible to presume to know what they were thinking and why - thus, I have never claimed to. All I am describing is the way that the text, as they presented it, is communicating, in my opinion.  It is extraordinary of you to declare that I have no right to express such a view, and to then attempt to belittle and insult me when I refuse to play into your reductive reasoning.

To put it as simply (and without fancy words) as I can:

It is impossible for the game to continue to claim that it is about unity and racial tolerance when the final action of the tale - what it has been building to all along - demands that you genocide, mind-control, or genetically mutate everyone in order to stop a racial war that hasn't even happened yet.

If the only hope of avoiding two races killing each other is to destroy one of them, mutate them to have exactly the same DNA, or to appoint yourself the unstoppable god that will smack them down if they try, then you have abandoned your belief that people can grow beyond intolerance by forcing them to do as you wish.

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

[Davik Kang]

drayfish wrote...

...you asked no valid questions,

Oh?  How about I write them out in simple form with numbers and everything, and then you can at least explain to me how they're not valid.

Davik Kang wrote...
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

drayfish wrote...

[1] It is impossible for the game to continue to claim that it is about unity and racial tolerance when the final action of the tale - what it has been building to all along - demands that you genocide, mind-control, or genetically mutate everyone in order to stop a racial war that hasn't even happened yet.

[2] If the only hope of avoiding two races killing each other is to destroy one of them, mutate them to have exactly the same DNA, or to appoint yourself the unstoppable god that will smack them down if they try, then you have abandoned your belief that people can grow beyond intolerance by forcing them to do as you wish.

*sigh* Do you still really misunderstand the point?  Or are you intentionally wording this wrong just to try to support your own conclusion?

I have said this so many times... but here we go again... please do me the coutesy of actually taking in the point this time...

1. You are stopping a war that is happening now.  Not an organics v synthetics war.  Why on Earth do you persist with this false starting point?  We are at war with the Reapers.  The only option we have is the Crucible.

2. It is not the only hope of stopping synthetics killing organics.  It is the only hope of stopping the Reapers.

Come on, this isn't difficult stuff, this is the basic understanding of the ending.  We don't need any specualtion here.  Please don't try to transform this into your own personal argument about synthetics v organics.  That's the Kid's problem, but it's not Shepard's problem.  Shepard is just trying to stop the Reapers.  Not end the apparent war between synthetics and organics that the Child claims is inevitable.

I gotta sleep so I can't respond til tomorrow but please at least try to answer these points properly.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:21 .

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
1) Mass Effect is an M rated game, and so long as there is some ethical weight or compromise to a choice, there are people who will interpret them in a manner you may not approve of.

2) Synthesis is an upgrade to all life. I think the onus is on the detractors to explain why upgrading all life is bad.

If Synthesis works, then there was nothing "arrogant" about it - seems like the Catalyst knew what it was talking about. The fact that the Reapers "approve" of it is irrelevant. Synthesis stopped the war, and life gets nothing but benefit out of it.

You and the OP have referenced consent, and that seems like a legitimate issue - there's your ethical compromise.

3) A shared sacrifice is ethically "easier" to pick than one where others (friends and allies of another race) are sacrificed. Its just not as difficult a choice.

4) The Catalyst hasn't offered anyone Control except Shepard. Saren wasn't trying to control the Reapers, he wanted to be useful enough to not be killed. The Illusive Man was correct that Control was possible, but he was also indoctrinated.

For "Control" I don't really see a "seduction of power" when Shepard is clearly dead.

A dictatorial statement to "ensure that all have a voice in their future" will probably not lead to a dictatorship. "I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many." Sounds good to me

5) I fail to see how Synthesis and Control jettison "fellowship, inclusivity and unity." In Control, that is what the Shepard AI is meant to protect. In Synthesis, this is exactly what happens with everyone, including the Reapers.

In Destroy, a life-form is sacrificed, and the galaxy is left to develop on its own. No matter if one believes in "fellowship, inclusivity and unity", one does not pick Destroy to further that. This not the same as "jettisoning" those values.

1. True, but here, it's like being asked to throw away all ethics in general, as that's the only way one can accept the endings. You throw away any respect for the rights of living beings for Synthesis. You throw away any self-respect for Control. You throw away any care for equality for all for Destroy. And you throw away any and all caring for saving everything you have seen in the game for Refuse.

2. Removing genetic diversity doesn't seem like a good idea. To qoute Mordin Solus on removing the limatations on life, which Synthesis does:
"Disrupts scoio-technological balance! All scientific advancement do to intellegence overcoming, compensating for limitations.
Cant carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations! No limitations, no advancement! No advancement, culture stagnates!
Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready, disasterous."
This is basically the same with Synthesis. "Upgrading" all life so suddenly, like what the salarians did with the krogan... well, look how THAT turned out. The korgan set the galaxy on fire, then got sterilized.
No diversity. No limiting factors. Implimenting a change this sudden. Having it forced on every being in the galaxy.
This has socialtal colapse written all over it.

3. But then everyone is burned in the process. Besides, they themselves would argue the point. They would all be willing to lay down everything to save the others from that.

4. The statement "Shepard is clearly dead," is the problem.
What precicely was created in Control, then? An A.I. with a god complex?
Because we ALL know what happens when an all powerful, god-like A.I. with no limiting factors is created.
It get's overzelous in it's job and has to either be put down, have some sence kicked into it, or it just goes bat-s*** crazy and you don't know WHAT it does. Or supremely logical to the point that it no longer cares about individual living beings.
I really don't think giving the Reapers a Shepard-based A.I. to make them practally invincable is a very good idea.

5. But these are crroupted in the process. Echos of the original intent.
In Synthesis, you sacrifice the rights of ALL beings in the galaxy: The rights of self-improvement and evolution, two of the baseline rights that all living beings are born with. Lifting away the limitations on life and playing god like that is no different then what the Reapers and the Catalyst were doing, by forcing all life down a spicific bath.
To qoute Legion:
"Accepting anothers path blinds you to alternitives. Nazara - Sovergien - told you this on Virmire:
'Your civilazation is based on the technology of the Mass Relays - Our technology. By using it, your species develops along the paths we desire.
Technology is not a straight line. There are many paths to the same goal."
The point here is, the path taken is just as improtant as the result. It's important that species builds themselves up to that point through their OWN actions, and giving them the chance to do that through their own individual, unique, diverse ways, was one of the key reasons for fighting the Reapers.
Just short-cutting them robs them of the experences needed to truly repect this, and the natural evolutanary limitations needed to keep them in check when they themselves are not able to. All this is just seeting them up for evolutanary colapse.

[clennon8]

I completely agree with everything you're saying, drayfish, as an assessment of literal interpretations of the ending.

Where I part ways with you (and many others) is this sort of subtextual implication (and sometimes outright declaration) that Indoc Theory was plucked out of the aether and applied by desperate people in order to have a happy ending. As if we haven't been playing a trilogy of games about Chthuluesque monsters who brainwash people by their mere presence. Somehow, when it comes to discussion of the ending, the topic of indoctrination gets placed in the same category as mermaids and unicorns, even though its insidious presence has been felt throughout the entire damn game series. It isn't some wacky gimmick, ok? It's a completely logical continuation of the story.

But, again, if I am forced to treat the ending as if what we saw really happened as we saw it, then I totally agree with everything youv'e said. It's repugnant.

Modifié par clennon8, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[AlanC9]

Davik, it's pretty obvious that you're talking past drayfish. Or he's talking past you, if you like. Note that this.....

drayfish wrote...
It is impossible for the game to continue to claim that it is about unity and racial tolerance when the final action of the tale - what it has been building to all along - demands that you genocide, mind-control, or genetically mutate everyone in order to stop a racial war that hasn't even happened yet.

... has nothing whatsoever to do with Shepard's own decision-making. It's about a message supposedly being communicated by the game itself.

Though that doesn't really explain the next paragraph...

If the only hope of avoiding two races killing each other is to destroy one of them, mutate them to have exactly the same DNA, or to appoint yourself the unstoppable god that will smack them down if they try, then you have abandoned your belief that people can grow beyond intolerance by forcing them to do as you wish.

...... since the conclusion doesn't follow. Shepard can still believe that people can grow beyond intolerance and nevertheless think that using the Crucinle is the only sane option.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Andres Hendrix]

Davik Kang wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...
Destroy: Shepard destroys the Geth because the God child deemed synthetics and humans both unable to coexist. This ending also ignores modern just war theory.

This is not why Shepard destroys the Geth.  Shepard has control of a weapon that can destroy the Reapers.  If she doesn't use it, everybody dies.  She has to use it, but according to the child, all synthetics will be affected.  Whatever happens at the end, Shepard is not choosing Destroy based on the "Child deeming organics and synthetics to be unable to coexist".  Seriously, this is basic logic.  If synthetics and organics cannot coexist, then Destroy dooms organic life to extinction.  Because the new synthetics will wipe out organics according to the Child's logic.

This isn't especially complicated.  This is the basic point. 

Well, all you have written is a reiteration of my point, I bring up how the Geth and Quarians coincide so as to highlight the ill logic you talk about. Shepard in all choices is forced to choose the inept ending on the whim of the god kid (that is what those short blurbs on the ending tried to highlight). It is a though you have not even bothered to have read the full post. In addition, you seem to argue from political realism, that the end is just about making a choice, and that choose wins the war (the end justifies the means so to speak). I have also written how the political realism view fails by discussing perhaps one of the most influential realists, the Prussian General, Carl Von Clausewitz.

“Clausewitz the late Prussian General, famed for his book “On War” stated that the object of war is disarmament of the enemy. Disarmament of the enemy consists of taking away the enemies capabilities, and breaking the will to fight. As a simultaneous action to disarmament, the enemy bends (this is not thought control) to the will (want) of the greater force. The fleets in ME3 are most certainly being disarmed and the will to fight is slowly but surely dying out. Shepard then confronts the quasi religious AI Child with its “unalterable logic”, which we also find out is the logic of the Reapers. Shepard must choose from the answers the enemy gives him, essentially forcing
him to bend to the will of the enemy. If Shepard refuses the choices in the crucible, the fleets are decimated and the cycle (genocide), the AI child’s first solution is started again. Therefore, the Allied forces do not actually defeat the reapers. In the end, in any situation, the Reaper logic gets its way. Shepard is bent by the will of the enemy; as a result, it is safe to say that the Reapers win, because the object of war escapes you. You may say, well the choicesdisarm the Reapers. It is just as easy to say that the choices disarm the allies, on the impulse of the Lovecraftian crawfish” lol (Reapers).  http://social.biowar.../index/13726613


You also have failed to address the essence of totalitarianism(the Hitchens quote), the SI problem and well, the entire post really.

Modifié par Andres Hendrix, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[silverexile17s]

Davik Kang wrote...

drayfish wrote...

...you asked no valid questions,

Oh?  How about I write them out in simple form with numbers and everything, and then you can at least explain to me how they're not valid.

Davik Kang wrote...
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

drayfish wrote...

[1] It is impossible for the game to continue to claim that it is about unity and racial tolerance when the final action of the tale - what it has been building to all along - demands that you genocide, mind-control, or genetically mutate everyone in order to stop a racial war that hasn't even happened yet.

[2] If the only hope of avoiding two races killing each other is to destroy one of them, mutate them to have exactly the same DNA, or to appoint yourself the unstoppable god that will smack them down if they try, then you have abandoned your belief that people can grow beyond intolerance by forcing them to do as you wish.

*sigh* Do you still really misunderstand the point?  Or are you intentionally wording this wrong just to try to support your own conclusion?

I have said this so many times... but here we go again... please do me the coutesy of actually taking in the point this time...

1. You are stopping a war that is happening now.  Not an organics v synthetics war.  Why on Earth do you persist with this false starting point?  We are at war with the Reapers.  The only option we have is the Crucible.

2. It is not the only hope of stopping synthetics killing organics.  It is the only hope of stopping the Reapers.

Come on, this isn't difficult stuff, this is the basic understanding of the ending.  We don't need any specualtion here.  Please don't try to transform this into your own personal argument about synthetics v organics.  That's the Kid's problem, but it's not Shepard's problem.  Shepard is just trying to stop the Reapers.  Not end the apparent war between synthetics and organics that the Child claims is inevitable.

I gotta sleep so I can't respond til tomorrow but please at least try to answer these points properly.

I agree with @Drayfish.
1. How are you any diferent then the Reapers, Cerberus, or even Saren by using these options? The only way the endings are acceptible is if you completely throw away any and all concept of morality.
Only someone with the set Renagade mindset of victory at any and all cost, like Saren, could accept Destroy.
Only someone with the set idea that no one can ever have a lasting peace without intervention from a god-like power can accept Control.
And only someone with the nihilistic viewpoint that individual diversity and choice doesn't matter could consider Synthesis a truly viable option.
The whole point of fighting the Reapers was to prove that the Reapers interference was not needed, nor nesscary. It was to prove that life can adapt. That epople, given the time, can understand each other, and accept them. What happens with the quarians and geth PROVES that organic and synthetic life CAN co-exist if given the CHANCE, which the Reapers never have. And in one way, or another, the endings kill these goals. It's like trying to decide which is the lesser evil. A Deus Ex Machina if there ever was one. It's literally throwing out the entire reason for fighting the Reapers in the first place.
It's not hard to see.

2. Actually, it's NOT the only way. The Catalyst is the embodyment of all Reapers? And he is housed in the Citadel?
So I'd just pour the Crucible energy into the Citadel network and fry him dead. With their galvinizing thoght process's avatar dead, I'm guessing that it would lobotomize the Reapers. ALL Reapers, since he is a conglomeration of ALL their collictive wills. (Think Sovergien after you kill his Saren-Husk avatar in ME1)
Yes, you'd die because the Citadel's power grid overloading like that would blow the entrie station to hell. Yes it doesn't instantly win the war. But it wins Earth and permenitly cripples all the Reapers in the Galaxy.
And best of all - you can rest easy knowing you gave life a chance to evovolve, adapt, and overcome the Reaper's minipulations WITHOUT having to resort to a Deus Ex Machina.
THAT'S how I would have done it. And I know it's not the BEST of the fan-options out there, but I think it would have been receved MUCH better then the endings in the game, even if Shepard died, because you do what you ACTUALLY set out to do -Stop the Reapers on YOUR terms, and NOT on their Deus Ex Machina arbitrary conditions.
There ARE, after all, OTHER possibilaties that could have been done that would have been plausable.

[silverexile17s]

clennon8 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

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.

I agree. In the end, you feel like there is no way to 'win.' It feels like EVERY option makes you lose in one way, or another.
We fight to prove organics and synthetics can co-exist (Invaladated by Destroy)
We fight to prove we can exist without the existance of the Reapers (Invaladated by Control)
We fight to prove that we have the right to evolve our own sepeate, diverse ways, and don't need intervention by some god-power (Invaladated by Synthesis)
We fight to prove that we can stand alone and win our freedom from the cycles (now Invaladated by Refuse)

It's all SO bittersweet, it doesn't give you much incentive to replay.

I fought for the "Legend" popup at the end of the credits. Therefore, no matter what choice I make, I win! 

(guess whether I'm serious or not)

I can respect that, but do you feel any incentive to play through the endings again, now that you've done it once?
(Regardless of which choice you picked)

[silverexile17s]

drayfish 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

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.

I agree with these sentiments. Uising a murderer, or a dictators, tools and methods against them just puts you on the same level as them.

[silverexile17s]

Estelindis wrote...

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.

Don't forget the fact that should you chose not to accept these actions, you must watch as everything you fought for is obliterated.
It's either decide the lesser of three evils, or let everything die.

[drayfish]

clennon8 wrote...

I completely agree with everything you're saying, drayfish, as an assessment of literal interpretations of the ending.

Where I part ways with you (and many others) is this sort of subtextual implication (and sometimes outright declaration) that Indoc Theory was plucked out of the aether and applied by desperate people in order to have a happy ending. As if we haven't been playing a trilogy of games about Chthuluesque monsters who brainwash people by their mere presence. Somehow, when it comes to discussion of the ending, the topic of indoctrination gets placed in the same category as mermaids and unicorns, even though its insidious presence has been felt throughout the entire damn game series. It isn't some wacky gimmick, ok? It's a completely logical continuation of the story.

But, again, if I am forced to treat the ending as if what we saw really happened as we saw it, then I totally agree with everything youv'e said. It's repugnant.

@ clennon:

I hope that I've not given the impression that I dismiss outright or mock the Indoc theory.  Indeed, I was, at one point (pre-EC) an enormous enthusiast for that reading of the game, considering it one of the greatest metatextual moves any publisher could pull (http://social.biowar...36/blog/219237/).

It's fair to say that I no longer have as much faith in that reading anymore (despitte being unable to shake it entirely), but I still support people who are. 

The point I have been (obviously poorly) trying to make is that discussion of the ending should not be immediately halted when indoctrination theory (which is a valid - but still only one) reading of the events that transpire there is raised.  I was, as you are saying, merely arguing that if one wishes to speak of the literal interpretation, it should not be immediately trumped by IT - just as it would be wrong, in a discussion of IT to demand that everything be read only as corporeal fact.

Sorry for the misrepresentation of my perspective.

[Obadiah]

@Davik and AlanC9
Yeah, drayfish's position looks to be basically that the writers (I guess it's "accidentally" now, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong) created a racist, disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation, intolerance, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide. On the face of it, it is a position so completely ridiculous one wonders if it is even worthwhile taking the time to try to respond. I mean, it seems more like a massive troll than anything else.

The best thing I can say about it is the drayfish argues it tirelessly, repeatedly, and ad-nauseum with gusto.

[silverexile17s]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

I agree. No matter what happens, all the endings seem to part of a choice between lesser evils.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...
2. Actually, it's NOT the only way. The Catalyst is the embodyment of all Reapers? And he is housed in the Citadel?
So I'd just pour the Crucible energy into the Citadel network and fry him dead. With their galvinizing thoght process's avatar dead, I'm guessing that it would lobotomize the Reapers. ALL Reapers, since he is a conglomeration of ALL their collictive wills. (Think Sovergien after you kill his Saren-Husk avatar in ME1)

Or the Catalyst dies and they keep Reaping. Or the Catalyst dies and the Reapers realize that the cycles are really stupid, so they conquer the galaxy for good. Assuming Shepard can actually do that in the first place..... does he even have a working omni-tool?

But you're talking rewrite rather than Shep's existing options, right? So you're not really disagreeing with Davik so much as positing a completely different situation from the one he's talking about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[silverexile17s]

I do believe that @Drayfish and others likeminded are correct in the sentiment that the endings are a choice of lesser evils.
For the record though, I support the IT, even though the EC is regarded to have killed it. But I still agree with it's points and still support those who agree with it.