530 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

@Andres Hendrix
I'm attacking the argument that the writers accidentally created an ugly, racist, disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation, intolerance, dictatoriship, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide. I'm saying that repeating it is not useful.

This argument directly uses loaded words to summarize, confuse, and cloud any discussion of the ending that does not nod in agreement that "yes, these things are indeed bad." It is an attempt to shut down rather than engage in a discussion.

That is why any attempt to properly summarize it's conclusion (what my one paragraph did) ends up making the conclusion look like a troll post. It is still however a fair summary of the conclusion.

Granted, it is a fairly weak response since I don't directly defend it, but I think it is fairly self-evident justification for anyone following the thread.

@inko1nsiderate
Pretty much.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 novembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...


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

It's the only morality from which the ending choices can be made in concince.
At least, that's MY take on it. Wait for THEIR responce.

[CosmicGnosis]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

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.

Yes, I agree with this. This forum is filled with discussions that ultimately lead nowhere because the participants are either unwilling or incapable of considering other perspectives.

The solution? Synthesis!

[Bill Casey]

drayfish wrote...

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...'

Only Synthesis actually solves his problem theoretically...
In fact, Destroy actively works against his problem because he's programmed to preserve life. It wipes out 20,000 cycles of the Catalyst's preserved life and leaves organics at the theoretical mercy of synthetics. Refuse actually benefits the Catalyst's mandate...

Basically, the catalyst is presenting a red herring...

[silverexile17s]

Obadiah wrote...

@Andres Hendrix
I'm attacking the argument that the writers accidentally created an ugly, racist, disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation, intolerance, dictsatoriship, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide. I'm saying that repeating it is not useful.

This argument directly uses loaded words dictatorship, tototalitarianism, Eugenics, racism, and genocide to summarize, confuse, and cloud any discussion of the ending that does not nod in agreement that "yes, these things are indeed bad." It is an attempt to shut down rather than engage in a discussion.

That is why any attempt to properly summarize it's conclusion (what my one paragraph did) ends up making the conclusion looking like a troll post. But it is still a fair summary of the conclusion.

Granted, it is a fairly weak response since I don't directly defend it, but I think it is fairly self-evident justification for anyone following the thread.

@inko1nsiderate
Pretty much.

These are what the endings promote. He NEVER said thats' what the writers INTENDED. I doubt they intended that ending blow-up, either.
I don't like the endings. I am quite adimate about that point.
BUT. IF someone has valid points, I will consider them, and if they ARE right, I will conceed.
BTW: While on the topic, what do YOU think the spicific morals, good, bad, and in between, of the endings are? And did EC, in your opinion, add any meangingful improvement to them?
You and I will most likely debate these things until we are blue in the face. But I might as well ask, since that's the original purpose of this topic.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AlanC9 wrote...


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

It presents the worst possible case for all endings. That's where the ethical flaws of each stand out. You guys can fiddle around arguing the nuances. I just cut to the bottom line. Even though there is genocide involved the least of the evils is Destroy.

[Obadiah]

@silverexile17s
That is why I said "accidentally created".

My position on the endings are on the front page here.

[yukon fire]

Bill Casey wrote...

drayfish wrote...

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...'

Only Synthesis actually solves his problem theoretically...
In fact, Destroy actively works against his problem because he's programmed to preserve life. It wipes out 20,000 cycles of the Catalyst's preserved life and leaves organics at the theoretical mercy of synthetics. Refuse actually benefits the Catalyst's mandate...

Basically, the catalyst is presenting a red herring...

But his problem isn't a problem, he believes that because synthetics and organics might come into conflict the Reapers need to intervene, but conflict is a part of life. We have conflict with one another, conflict with our environment, and conflict within our society. Conflict is a naturally occurring event, and it's existence between organics and synthetics doesn't necessarily mean that one side will be wiped out, nor will it ever require the reapers to preform acts of genocide to solve.

Yet Bioware forces us to accept this without question, and that is beyond moronic.        

Modifié par yukon fire, 02 novembre 2012 - 06:04 .

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
What does Shepard being pure evil have to do with anything?

It presents the worst possible case for all endings. That's where the ethical flaws of each stand out. You guys can fiddle around arguing the nuances. I just cut to the bottom line. Even though there is genocide involved the least of the evils is Destroy.

Hmm..... I still don't see what Shepard's intentions have to do with evaluating Synthesis and Destroy. I agree that in Control Shep's intentions matter because they're preserved in the Sheplyst. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 novembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[Obadiah]

@yukon fire
Yes, while that is a trust issue that Shep has with the Catalyst, is it an ethical problem?

@Andres Hendrix
With respect to Control being mind-control of the Reapers - it clearly is (or some kind of catalyst rewrite/replacement), but is this inherently an unethical act? The Reapers have offered mind control, and appear to be willing to accept it. It seems consensual by both parties, though under duress for Shepard.

This perhaps is another ethical problem with the ending, the Catalyst is essentially holding the galaxy hostage and forcing Shepard to act.

[AlanC9]

yukon fire wrote...
But his problem isn't a problem, he believes that because synthetics and organics might come into conflict the Reapers need to intervene, but conflict is a part of life. We have conflict with one another, conflict with our environment, and conflict within our society. Conflict is a naturally occurring event, and it's existence between organics and synthetics doesn't necessarily mean that one side will be wiped out, nor will it ever require the reapers to preform acts of genocide to solve.

Yet Bioware forces us to accept this without question, and that is beyond moronic.        

What? Shepard doesn't have to accept anything of the sort.

[dorktainian]

ethics and art don't mix.

[silverexile17s]

AlanC9 wrote...

yukon fire wrote...
But his problem isn't a problem, he believes that because synthetics and organics might come into conflict the Reapers need to intervene, but conflict is a part of life. We have conflict with one another, conflict with our environment, and conflict within our society. Conflict is a naturally occurring event, and it's existence between organics and synthetics doesn't necessarily mean that one side will be wiped out, nor will it ever require the reapers to preform acts of genocide to solve.

Yet Bioware forces us to accept this without question, and that is beyond moronic.        

What? Shepard doesn't have to accept anything of the sort.

Doesn't he? After all, the alternitive is to stand back and watch everything die.
Something just as morinic.

[AlanC9]

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

yukon fire wrote...
But his problem isn't a problem, he believes that because synthetics and organics might come into conflict the Reapers need to intervene, but conflict is a part of life. We have conflict with one another, conflict with our environment, and conflict within our society. Conflict is a naturally occurring event, and it's existence between organics and synthetics doesn't necessarily mean that one side will be wiped out, nor will it ever require the reapers to preform acts of genocide to solve.

Yet Bioware forces us to accept this without question, and that is beyond moronic.        

What? Shepard doesn't have to accept anything of the sort.

Doesn't he? After all, the alternitive is to stand back and watch everything die.
Something just as morinic.

Don't be silly. Shepard can think that the idea of inevitablle synthetic/organic conflict is nonsense, and still use the Crucible as a way to make the idiocy stop.

[SeptimusMagistos]

I've noted this before and I'll note this again:

There is absolutely no evidence that Control translates into a dictatorship.

[Estelindis]

Obadiah wrote...
@Andres Hendrix
I'm attacking the argument that the writers accidentally created an ugly, racist,
disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation,
intolerance, dictatoriship, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide.
I'm saying that repeating it is not useful.
This argument directly uses loaded words to summarize, confuse, and cloud any
discussion of the ending that does not nod in agreement that "yes, these things
are indeed bad." It is an attempt to shut down rather than engage in a
discussion.
That is why any attempt to properly summarize it's conclusion (what my one
paragraph did) ends up making the conclusion look like a troll post. It is still
however a fair summary of the conclusion.
Granted, it is a fairly weak response since I don't directly defend it, but I think it
is fairly self-evident justification for anyone following the thread.

The opposite of what is self-evident to you is self-evident to me.

I have already argued, agreeing with others in this thread, that the endgame choices are deeply problematic from an ethical perspective. Logically, if we are right and the ending is ethically problematic, then our possibilities are that whoever wrote the ending was either aware of its disturbing moral message or they were not. Perhaps they were aware and chose to send a bleak message. Perhaps they were not aware, so entranced with... something about the ending that appealed to them, whatever that might be. Neither of those is beyond plausibility.

Of course, if we are wrong and the ending is not morally problematic, then this issue evaporates. But that is why it's important to focus on the actual ethical argument.

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@Andres Hendrix
I'm attacking the argument that the writers accidentally created an ugly, racist, disgusting, vile, abhorrent ending that dear gods validates forced mutation, intolerance, dictatoriship, totalitarianism, mind-control, Eugenics, and genocide. I'm saying that repeating it is not useful.

This argument directly uses loaded words to summarize, confuse, and cloud any discussion of the ending that does not nod in agreement that "yes, these things are indeed bad." It is an attempt to shut down rather than engage in a discussion.

That is why any attempt to properly summarize it's conclusion (what my one paragraph did) ends up making the conclusion look like a troll post. It is still however a fair summary of the conclusion.

Granted, it is a fairly weak response since I don't directly defend it, but I think it is fairly self-evident justification for anyone following the thread.

@inko1nsiderate
Pretty much.

I must admit, I find this rather sad.

My argument has remained the same throughout this discussion. Much like you appear to, I believe that the ending utilises three morally questionable techniques to end a war: genocide, totalitarian mind control, and eugenics. The game forces us to choose one in order to (in your own words) offer "an ethical compromise - they are meant to test the players' resolve and have each of us weigh what we find more important." (http://social.biowar...2626/1#14763591)

Where we appear to differ is in finding such compromise revealing, or in having anything worthwhile, or socially responsible, to say.

The fact that you have then sought to explode that position out into some caricature troll squall, attempting to picture my position as a series of detached buzz words screamed into the void is infantile, and speaks poorly of your capacity to engage in any kind of debate.  (Indeed, the fact that you quote the phrase 'dear gods' which I believe was in response to being called a coward by another poster, reveals how intentionally deceptive (or ill-informed) this post was.) 

I freely admit that I can be guilty of loquacious description - but it always helps to read the words a person says in context in order to comprehend what they mean, rather than just nitpick the most inflammatory ones at random, mix them into a salad, and condescendingly dismiss them as irrelevant.  The nonsense accusing me of calling the writers to account as racists or hate-mongers was the projection of another poster's fantasies, and while I have most certainly used each of the words you have quoted while responding to the very moral debate that the ending demands, attempting to belittle the entirety of my position by stringing them together like an incoherent, reactionary screed is pathetic. To see you employ such manipulative ugliness is quite disappointing.

Having said that, however, and having been subjected to your cartoonish misrepresentation, I would love to hear what it is that you get out of the ending.

Truly.

In your opinion my reading of the ending is entirely lacking. That's cool. I can believe that. So what is it about this deal with the galaxy's greatest mass-murderer that reveals anything to you about the nature of humanity? Of genuine sacrifice?

It is great (and rather easy) to say that moral compromise is in the mix there, but what does it actually do? What was the point of forcing the player to confront such a circumstance, and compel them to sell out their beliefs?  Again, nothing is simpler than nodding sagely, and burbling that the ending is 'deep' because it forces us to confront troubling moral quandries... But so what?  What is the point of it all?  What do we learn, and what do we do with that knowledge?

So far I have heard people speak of this as a test of moral relativity (you yourself claimed it was a great test of what we hold most sacred) - but aside from revealing that players can be willing to bargain away their morality to survive, or which atrocity is least appealing, I don't see what that actually says about ethics except that they are fundamentally malleable, and can be ignored if need be for the purposes of whatever 'greater good' is most pressing at any given moment.

I would (genuinely) love to hear you reveal something more than that, rather than petulently deriding anyone who disagrees with you.

Modifié par drayfish, 02 novembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[yukon fire]

AlanC9 wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

yukon fire wrote...
But his problem isn't a problem, he believes that because synthetics and organics might come into conflict the Reapers need to intervene, but conflict is a part of life. We have conflict with one another, conflict with our environment, and conflict within our society. Conflict is a naturally occurring event, and it's existence between organics and synthetics doesn't necessarily mean that one side will be wiped out, nor will it ever require the reapers to preform acts of genocide to solve.

Yet Bioware forces us to accept this without question, and that is beyond moronic.        

What? Shepard doesn't have to accept anything of the sort.

Doesn't he? After all, the alternitive is to stand back and watch everything die.
Something just as morinic.

Don't be silly. Shepard can think that the idea of inevitablle synthetic/organic conflict is nonsense, and still use the Crucible as a way to make the idiocy stop.

Not really as everything is forced on this principle, how advanced can half organic half synthetic life be when the they believe in this failed premise beyond everything.

Conflict and the ability to resolve it is the core principle of all life, how did Bioware forget this? It is the basis of every story, for the starbrat to say that conflict between two groups of people is unresolvable, despite the fact that you have already resolved it on both a personal level, between Legion and Tali, and on a societal level, between the Quarians and the Geth. just shows that the entire reason for any of the choices is crap. That is not a story of sacrifice thats a story of submission, and that's just Bioware being....something that I can in no way post in a public forum.    

[dorktainian]

There are no choices... Thats the lie. All options are imposed upon the universe. There is no answer to the Crudible/Star Brat question. It's all a lie. Wheres the choice? Real Choice?

Use the crudible - Destroy FTW?

If synthetics are destined to destroy organics - then kill the synthetics.... it's not rocket science. It's black and white. Them or us. Sure the Geth and Edi would die - but so would the reapers - who are the immediate threat.

Is there any guarantee with Control (no i'm not thinking of the FMV after shep takes on control). When presented with the question surely shepard would find that method utterly wrong. Controlling something / enslaving?

Synthesis. The only example of Synthesis shep has seen is with Reaper minions / husks. There is no way he'd subject anyone to potentially become a husk.

Or (after the backlash subsided and Bioware gave us the chance) just say no. Which to be fair when presented with all choices (even tho i'm a big destroy fanboi) is the best choice of all. The choice of freedom of will.

In the end, why should we conform to the choices offered by something which should have no right to offer thoses choices?

Ok... so it's just a game.

[yukon fire]

It is a game of submission, they took our face, our words, they made our choices mean nothing next to mp and they forced mp on us by removing content without it. Over and over again this game took from us a little bit more, until it took everything. This wasn't Mass Effect and it certainly wasn't a good game.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Mass Effect is not a piece of DADA art.

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

BS. Media or placement of Media does notstop it from being "ART".

[dreman9999]

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.

1.Shepard is told right befor it happen what going to happen.
2. Every choice in ME the issue of the long term results is unknowned.

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

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


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

1. That is not a reason we should not us it.
2. It the only reason why we can stop the reapers.
3.The only choice he open endores.


You not getting that the catalyst goalis not to win,just to do what it's programemed to do.

[dreman9999]

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.
  

Accepting the info on how to use the crucible does not mean you accepting it's views. Andin destroy it dead. In control it a slave to you.

[dreman9999]

dorktainian wrote...

There are no choices... Thats the lie. All options are imposed upon the universe. There is no answer to the Crudible/Star Brat question. It's all a lie. Wheres the choice? Real Choice?

Use the crudible - Destroy FTW?

If synthetics are destined to destroy organics - then kill the synthetics.... it's not rocket science. It's black and white. Them or us. Sure the Geth and Edi would die - but so would the reapers - who are the immediate threat.

Is there any guarantee with Control (no i'm not thinking of the FMV after shep takes on control). When presented with the question surely shepard would find that method utterly wrong. Controlling something / enslaving?

Synthesis. The only example of Synthesis shep has seen is with Reaper minions / husks. There is no way he'd subject anyone to potentially become a husk.

Or (after the backlash subsided and Bioware gave us the chance) just say no. Which to be fair when presented with all choices (even tho i'm a big destroy fanboi) is the best choice of all. The choice of freedom of will.

In the end, why should we conform to the choices offered by something which should have no right to offer thoses choices?

Ok... so it's just a game.

It has not control over the choices. Add, it's beyond the concept of winning and losing.