530 réponses à ce sujet

[drayfish]

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.

Having already stated this several times now:

1. I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads (it is ludicrous of you to keep demanding that I do).

2. Yet again, I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads - but presumably they were comfortable with the readings people were making. 

3. This is getting tedious, but: I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads.  Asking me to speculate what they might have been thinking, because of what you think might be going on, becomes so ridiculously vague and tangential that it barely even qualifies as speculative shadow boxing.

You asking me to reason what was in the writer's heads is a nonsense, and is, ironically, precisely what you falsely accused me of doing in the first place.


As for responses to your points:

1. You are stopping the war that is going on now by using the Catalyst's (and by extension the Reapers') methods - which are all war crimes.  And you are using these tools - with his blessing - because they will solve his problem.  It really doesn't get clearer than that.  The Catalyst, and the game itself, states this clearly: 'We find a new solution', 'If there is to be a new solution, you must act...'

2. The war rages on, and will not end unless Shepard agrees to 'solve' the Catalyst's problem, and its issue with organics and synthetics.  I'm not sure how the two can be seperated when the intent, methodology and result all serve that end.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 novembre 2012 - 03:18 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

Well, that wasn't the intent.
I do disagree with Davik. He claimed that accepting the Deus Ex options were the ONLY way to EVER win.
I was saying that, plausably, there WERE other endings options that could have been made an implicated, besides the Deus Ex Machina choices.

Now, in regard to the question about the theory I put up, the Catalyst created them. From what we've seen, in "Leviathan' and the endings, the Catalyst is the central intelligence of the Reapers. Shepard's memories form a NEW Catalyst with which to control the Reapers.
So what if their WAS no Catalyst?
If he controls them and directs them, what happens if he is destroyed?
The bset answer is the same thing that normally happens to a collective body when you take off the head: It dies.
It would be akin to what happens when the backlash of the Saren-Husk's death lobotomizes Sovergien, or when the Geth over Rannoch were severed from the Reaper control signal. They become vunerble.
They may recover, but not at a very fast rate, as the mental shock of losing the devining core of their essience would cripple them. Think the Heretic Geth's disorginization after the loss of Saren and Sovergien.

[silverexile17s]

drayfish wrote...

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.

Having already stated this several times now:

1. I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads (it is ludicrous of you to keep demanding that I do).

2. Yet again, I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads - but presumably they were comfortable with the readings people were making. 

3. This is getting tedious, but: I cannot (and have never stated to be able to) speak to what was going through the writers' heads.  Asking me to speculate what they might have been thinking, because of what you think might be going on, becomes so ridiculously vague and tangential that it barely even qualifies as speculative shadow boxing.

You asking me to reason what was in the writer's heads is a nonsense, and is, ironically, precisely what you falsely accused me of doing in the first place.


As for responses to your points:

1. You are stopping the war that is going on now by using the Catalyst's (and by extension the Reapers') methods - which are all war crimes.  And you are using these tools - with his blessing - because they will solve his problem.  It really doesn't get clearer than that.  The Catalyst, and the game itself, states this clearly: 'We find a new solution', 'If there is to be a new solution, you must act...'

2. The war rages on, and will not end unless Shepard agrees to 'solve' the Catalyst's problem, and its issue with organics and synthetics.  I'm not sure how the two can be seperated when the intent, methodology and result all serve that end.

I agree. No matter which way you slice it, it all comes down to the fact that you fought the Reapers just to do their job for them.

[yukon fire]

For the life of me I don't understand why they set out to make make the game about "sacrifice", sacrifice is something that should happen to the character along the way. Its like making a movie only about the crucifixion, without a resolution it just comes across as just a bunch of crap that happened to someone. Not only did they originally fail to provide resolution, but the EC is not true resolution it's simply the least amount work they felt they could get away with, and in no way should that be the type of effort(?) they "end" Shep's story with.

Modifié par yukon fire, 02 novembre 2012 - 03:27 .

[clennon8]

drayfish wrote...

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.

I'm good with all that.  Good blog post, btw, even if it was written at a slightly more optimistic time.

[silverexile17s]

jstme wrote...

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.
  

This is true. There was never ANY mention of knowing what the writers were thinking when writing this.
It was that they ignored the moral point of RPG's and made the ending a near carbon-copy of Deus Ex's endings by taking out those considerations. Which have always been a CENTRAL point of RPG's and their stories.

[silverexile17s]

jstme 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.

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.  

LOL:P

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@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.

Glad to see you rising above such name-calling and patronising, Obadiah.

[silverexile17s]

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).

None of this makes you any better then them.
Looking on life, morals and consiquencices like that is almost nihilistic, as is basicly says that we will consider any cost as acceptible. That is the OPPOSATE of what the intended purpose of the game was. (Before the endings, at least)
To fight for the right that we COULD adapt and evolve by our own choices, and not by the intervention of others
Just laying down and submiting to this "ruthless calculas" style of logic is no better then just giving up. You NEED to care about the consiquences of this.

[Andres Hendrix]

Obadiah wrote...

@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.

Obadiah and others, please stop with the ad hominem attacks.
This is supposed to be an ethics discussion not a display of chauvinistic
jargon. When you say things like:



"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."



…you do not address drayfish's points therfore,  you look as though you cannot. Since
you do not address the original point of the discussion (ethics), the ad
hominem attacks are moot. Keep the discussion to the points on ethics, stop the
ragging, mewling and ad hominems, and address the topic at hand. If not, leave,
and shake off the angry tension, and perhaps see if you can actually address the  points
presented.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote..

Looking on life, morals and consiquencices like that is almost nihilistic, as is basicly says that we will consider any cost as acceptible. That is the OPPOSATE of what the intended purpose of the game was. (Before the endings, at least)

Where was that " intended purpose of the game" announced, anyway? I didn't follow the marketing very closely.

[Obadiah]

@Andres Hendrix
It's not an ad hominem attack, it's what drayfish's argument is (just go and read all of them). I'm not going to address drayfish's points again because they've already been addressed. Rather I took a moment to illustrate how absurd the position is.

I think it is a fair illustration.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 novembre 2012 - 03:52 .

[clennon8]

It's a failed illustration, drawn with crayons which you then proceeded to eat.

[yukon fire]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote..

Looking on life, morals and consiquencices like that is almost nihilistic, as is basicly says that we will consider any cost as acceptible. That is the OPPOSATE of what the intended purpose of the game was. (Before the endings, at least)

Where was that " intended purpose of the game" announced, anyway? I didn't follow the marketing very closely.

Well I certainly don't believe the intended purpose of the game was to be driven forward at the end by the unshakeable will responsible for the mass murdering of an uncountable number of individuals for what they "might" have done.  But it was.

Modifié par yukon fire, 02 novembre 2012 - 04:01 .

[AlanC9]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
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 ...

This is supposed to be an ethics discussion not a display of chauvinistic
jargon.

Well, Obadiah was saying that drayfish isn't making an ethics point, but making an aesthetics point and then muddling the two up. Though I agree that it's  not very useful to call someone's point completely ridiculous without telling him why it's completely ridiculous. (Even if you're utterly bored with the argument by now.)

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[Andres Hendrix]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

 

AlanC9, you claim that drayfish makes a non-sequitur argument;
you are only making a truth claim. You do not attempt to explain your logic. Secondly,
this is a discussion on the ethics of the game endings, the extent of the
players choice (that actually effects the ethics) goes as far as to highlight that
Shepard (the player) is forced to pick from the totalitarian choices.Please try to at least stay on topic.

[AlanC9]

Andres Hendrix wrote...
AlanC9, you claim that drayfish makes a non-sequitur argument; you are only making a truth claim. You do not attempt to explain your logic.

What do I need to explain about "Shepard can still believe that people can grow beyond intolerance and nevertheless think that using the Crucible is the only sane option"? Is there something unclear about that? Or do I need  to walk you through the decision-making process?

Secondly,
this is a discussion on the ethics of the game endings, the extent of the
players choice (that actually effects the ethics) goes as far as to highlight that
Shepard (the player) is forced to pick from the totalitarian choices.Please try to at least stay on topic.

Hey, drayfish brought Shepard's subjective beliefs up, not me. Talk to him.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 04:12 .

[Andres Hendrix]

Obadiah wrote...

@Andres Hendrix
It's not an ad hominem attack, it's what drayfish's argument is (just go and read all of them). I'm not going to address drayfish's points again because they've already been addressed. Rather I took a moment to illustrate how absurd the position is.

I think it is a fair illustration.

"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." 

 The above is your exact quote, just look at it and see if it is staying on topic? Take the sentance piece by piece and try and explain how it is not an ad hominem when you explictly  say things like, " 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."

You are attacking character not argument, just try to stay on topic. I am most  certainly for free speech, but I am also for staying on topic.

[inko1nsiderate]

Andres Hendrix wrote...

…you do not address drayfish's points therfore,  you look as though you cannot. Since
you do not address the original point of the discussion (ethics), the ad
hominem attacks are moot. Keep the discussion to the points on ethics, stop the
ragging, mewling and ad hominems, and address the topic at hand. If not, leave,
and shake off the angry tension, and perhaps see if you can actually address the  points
presented.

To be fair.  Can you even have a debate about ethics when one side says 'the endings are genocide and horrible' and the other side asks 'why?' and there is no suitable response, and then in reverse one side says 'synthesis is a violation of free will' and the other side says 'nuh uh'?  I mean do we even have what is required here to have an actual discussion?  Neither side seems willing to interface in any meaningful way with the other.  If you read the endings as morally reprehensible, then it seems you are cut off from an entire mode of analysis, and if you read the endings as not advocating genocide you are cut off from the analysis of the endings from that lens.

It just seems so...pointless.  No new ideas are being generated here.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 02 novembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Synthesis. Is this a good ending? It's perfect. Shepard infects all life in the entire galaxy with his/her DNA. Why stop at mere harvesting when you can corrupt every single life form?

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Control. Is this a good ending? It's nearly perfect. Shepard now rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Any planet that defies his/her rule gets harvested. Any race that allies itself with said planet faces the same fate. It's beautiful.

Refuse. Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy decides to watch the galaxy burn. Is this a good ending? Yes. There is no hope for the galactic cycle. The cycles continue. Hopefully Liara's beacon gets destroyed.

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Destroy. Is this a good ending? No. It destroys the reapers. It may kills one other synthetic race. It also only sacrifices AIs build from reaper parts. It leaves the galaxy in a state of hope for the future. While it still may leave Shepard alive, Shepard is only one person. Sad.

Now tell me which one of these is the best choice.

[AlanC9]

What does Shepard being pure evil have to do with anything?

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[WNxPowder]

from the start of Mass Effect 3 you are finding a way to destroy the reapers, So you do everything in your power to build the crucible because their is no way you can win a regular war,
So you Four choices

Destroy: Sacrificing Earth and/or Just AIs, giving organic life a fresh start(low ems) or life before reaper invasion(high ems), meaning the threat of AI uprising is still possible even though the Reapers controlled the geth at one point to attack organics, and the geth only defended there self's from the quarins

Control: The thing you stopped the illusive man from trying to accomplish, and becoming the thing you hate most becoming the star child, the goal of protecting Organic life just like the original AI

Synthesis: Chemistry Now equals invalid, Now it doesn't sound bad at first but it destroys privacy, individuality and free thinking, turning everyone into Reapers(part organic, part synthetic) that sooner or later become immortal

Refuse: Not using the crucible and let the next cycle make the decision

And StarChild didn't create the crucible he just tells you how to use it, he didn't need to tell you how to destroy him,become him, make him obsolete.
In the Low ems ending when you first meet him, he tells you "you don't need Hope" but in the High EMS, he tells you "You have Hope(paragon)/Choice(renegade, more than you know), more than you know"
Maybe you all should blame the leviathans for creating the reapers because their slaves kept dying
and maybe Bioware has won since we are hear talking about their game

[Andres Hendrix]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Andres Hendrix wrote...

…you do not address drayfish's points therfore,  you look as though you cannot. Since
you do not address the original point of the discussion (ethics), the ad
hominem attacks are moot. Keep the discussion to the points on ethics, stop the
ragging, mewling and ad hominems, and address the topic at hand. If not, leave,
and shake off the angry tension, and perhaps see if you can actually address the  points
presented.

To be fair.  Can you even have a debate about ethics when one side says 'the endings are genocide and horrible' and the other side asks 'why?' and there is no suitable response, and then in reverse one side says 'synthesis is a violation of free will' and the other side says 'nuh uh'?  I mean do we even have what is required here to have an actual discussion?  Neither side seems willing to interface in any meaningful way with the other.  If you read the endings as morally reprehensible, then it seems you are cut off from an entire mode of analysis, and if you read the endings as not advocating genocide you are cut off from the analysis of the endings from that lens.

It just seems so...pointless.  No new ideas are being generated here.

Have you even read my posts? If you want to take them on, by
all means talk your talk, and go for what ever you think a meaningful discussion is. Few people have
actually commented on my posts dealing with ethics.  You are making a very deterministic statement
by saying that "certainly the other side asks 'why?' and there is no
suitable response."

I am all for you trying to prove your statement, it is
getting late where I am thus I need some sleep, but I will most certainly
address what every points you make (and whatever else others may write), tomorrow. You
are welcome to take on my posts, see what you can muster, and stop with the
hand waving technique.

[Andres Hendrix]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Synthesis. Is this a good ending? It's perfect. Shepard infects all life in the entire galaxy with his/her DNA. Why stop at mere harvesting when you can corrupt every single life form?

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Control. Is this a good ending? It's nearly perfect. Shepard now rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Any planet that defies his/her rule gets harvested. Any race that allies itself with said planet faces the same fate. It's beautiful.

Refuse. Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy decides to watch the galaxy burn. Is this a good ending? Yes. There is no hope for the galactic cycle. The cycles continue. Hopefully Liara's beacon gets destroyed.

Pure evil Shepard who kicked puppies, and never did a good thing throughout the trilogy chooses Destroy. Is this a good ending? No. It destroys the reapers. It may kills one other synthetic race. It also only sacrifices AIs build from reaper parts. It leaves the galaxy in a state of hope for the future. While it still may leave Shepard alive, Shepard is only one person. Sad.

Now tell me which one of these is the best choice.

Just so, it is clear, we are talking about the ethics surrounding the end game choices
themselves. Shepard being evil is irrelevant. You are welcome to read my posts to
(as I keep saying) get yourself back on topic. Now I am going to bed.

[AlanC9]

I'll take you up on it, Andres, though I had to go back a bit to find a post of yours with actual substance.

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.

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.

This is badly confused ( it might be just that the writing's off). What the Catalyst wants doesn't have anything to do with why Shepard does or doesn't do something. At most, maybe the Catalyst had something to do with which options Shepard has at the end, but the choice between whatever options exist is solely Shepard's.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 05:17 .