530 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

drayfish wrote...

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.

1. Ethics are malleable. It's a relative concept. It's not abad thing that the universe does not bend toone ethics or morality.

2.This is a game of hypatheticals. As much as you don't agree withthe question, you'll have to note the very concept is to see how you react. That is how you see meaning out of it.

[dreman9999]

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...'

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.

1.That not the catalyst's  method. It hasnot control over what the crucible does. It just is tellin gyou what it does.
The gun does not belong tothe person your shooting if you drop it, they pick it up and give itback to you.

2.It's not forcing you to solve the orgainic vs synthetic problem. In fact, Control and destroy don't solve it at all. They extend it. The only choice you can take  that means you agree with the catalyst is synthesis.

[yukon fire]

Someone stop him he's on auto dialogue.

Nice nitpick everything and bury the responses of others.

[dorktainian]

sooner this game is buried the better.

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

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.

This is a game that was made for the player to question moral from the start. Of couse the person writing and planning the story knows the ending is ethicly conflicting. They clearly did that on perpose. They always planned to.

The orginal planned ending ether had you stopping the reapers and dooming the universe or letting humanity be turned into a reaper to save the galexy.

Moral conflict has been BW goal with ME from the start.

[dreman9999]

yukon fire wrote...

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.

BS. We have 4 differnt ending for destroy , and 3 for control that proves choice matter. Heck, they even lowered the ems requirement for the ending so we don't even have to play the mp.

It not a case you choice does not matter. It's a case you just don't like the choices on hand.

[dreman9999]

yukon fire wrote...

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.    

BW didnot forget conflict is nessary. The point your missing isth emotivation of the catalyst. It's just doing what it's programed to do. Perserve all life...It has no care over the nature of the galexy...Just that it does what it's programmed to do. It did not choose to solve th issue of organics and synthetics..It was made to.

Bw is not saying synthesis is an end of conflict.Just the catalyst version is. In the end it control everything in it's version of synthesis.

[Estelindis]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

1. If Shepard believes the Catalyst when it says that it created the Reapers, then s/he must view the Catalyst as the foe of the united races of the galaxy and thus likely to deceive and betray.  Of course, if Shepard does not believe that the Catalyst created the Reapers as it said, it is presumably because it thinks the Catalyst is lying about that (and thus not trustworthy about other things) or that the Catalyst believe this about itself even though it's not true (and thus cannot reliably describe its own nature, what it is capable of, etc.).  In other words, there is no circumstance in which the Catalyst is credible from Shepard's point of view at the moment of making her or his choice.  (What we as players know happens in the cutscenes after the choice cannot come into play here because we are looking at it from the perspective of Shepard's choice and Shepard can't see into the future.)

2. In every other situation that comes to my mind, Shepard has more reliable information and context to help him or her extrapolate what the consequences of the choice might be.  Choosing to support one race in its dispute with another?  Shepard knows things about the races in question, e.g. the background of the geth/quarian conflict, the suffering of the krogan under the genophage weighted against their often-warlike nature, etc.  Choosing to save Ashley or Kaidan on Virmire?  Shepard has information about the situations they are in and their abilities in combat that can help to make the choice.  This Catalyst AI and its purpose?  Shepard was under the impression that the nature and purpose of the Reapers was beyond human comprehension... as opposed to (supposedly) entirely oriented around organics and their (supposed) inevitable conflict with their synthetic creations.  Previous conflicts at least showed that each side had a certain basis that could be understood (e.g. fear, revenge, differing philosophies), as opposed to the insane troll logic of the Catalyst.  To be perfectly frank, while the Mass Effect series has sometimes thrown us a curveball when it comes to the expected consequences of our actions, the results of past choices have generally been what we would have expected them to be.  But how many of us floated up that beam of light the first time thinking that we'd be making a choice between three different colours of evil?

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

1. If Shepard believes the Catalyst when it says that it created the Reapers, then s/he must view the Catalyst as the foe of the united races of the galaxy and thus likely to deceive and betray.  Of course, if Shepard does not believe that the Catalyst created the Reapers as it said, it is presumably because it thinks the Catalyst is lying about that (and thus not trustworthy about other things) or that the Catalyst believe this about itself even though it's not true (and thus cannot reliably describe its own nature, what it is capable of, etc.).  In other words, there is no circumstance in which the Catalyst is credible from Shepard's point of view at the moment of making her or his choice.  (What we as players know happens in the cutscenes after the choice cannot come into play here because we are looking at it from the perspective of Shepard's choice and Shepard can't see into the future.)

2. In every other situation that comes to my mind, Shepard has more reliable information and context to help him or her extrapolate what the consequences of the choice might be.  Choosing to support one race in its dispute with another?  Shepard knows things about the races in question, e.g. the background of the geth/quarian conflict, the suffering of the krogan under the genophage weighted against their often-warlike nature, etc.  Choosing to save Ashley or Kaidan on Virmire?  Shepard has information about the situations they are in and their abilities in combat that can help to make the choice.  This Catalyst AI and its purpose?  Shepard was under the impression that the nature and purpose of the Reapers was beyond human comprehension... as opposed to (supposedly) entirely oriented around organics and their (supposed) inevitable conflict with their synthetic creations.  Previous conflicts at least showed that each side had a certain basis that could be understood (e.g. fear, revenge, differing philosophies), as opposed to the insane troll logic of the Catalyst.  To be perfectly frank, while the Mass Effect series has sometimes thrown us a curveball when it comes to the expected consequences of our actions, the results of past choices have generally been what we would have expected them to be.  But how many of us floated up that beam of light the first time thinking that we'd be making a choice between three different colours of evil?

1. That's counter by the fact that the catalyst already won and stopped and offered a way for Shepard to stop the reapers. The fact the crucible did not work and the catalyst could of let the reaper continue to harvest contradicts the issue hat it may be trying to trick you.
2.Ummmm? It's not insane troll logic. It clearly tells you why and points out why it does it. True, it's because of the issue of organic vs synthestics but ...It was programmed to beleives this. The fact that it states it was created by being that reconized that their is an issue with organics and synthestic point to the fact that it is just doing what it's programmed to do.
You may not beleive there is an organic/synthesis issue or it has to be solve this way,you missing th fact that the catalyst did not have a choice in the matter of having to solve it or not. It was made and forced to solve the issue.
Also, the way it wants to solve everthing is to control all life, not kill it off. The reaper solution is just a way for it to control advance life by making it into something it can control, a reaper. The minds of the races it harvests are uploaded into a reaper body.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 novembre 2012 - 11:39 .

[SpamBot2000]

Not bothering to read the whole thread, since I've had my fill of justifications for the ending. But here's a brief comment on the ABC:

Destroy: You get to pull the trigger on those synthetic life forms you spent a trilogy in establishing as a valid form of life. All talk of "collateral damage" is an ethical failure in itself, because the very term is a military locution designed to de-emphasize to the point of abstraction the actual event of killing people other than enemy combatants.

Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time. And this time the Space Monster is you.

Synthesis: If you happen to believe in these wild theories that a life form's DNA has any bearing on the essence of that life form, surely it will follow that fusing that DNA with "synthetic DNA" (which is how the original ending put it, and as BioWare would have you believe, the EC "changed NOTHING!") would irrevocably alter the very essence of every living being everywhere for ever. If this seems like not such a big deal for you, you would be mistaken. It is the very biggest deal there is in the deal district of Deal City. Even the green-eyed, circuit-sportin' replicas of characters we all know and love you see posing for the ending slides are not those characters at all. They just look kinda similar. Those characters are no more. You just ENDED THE LIFE of every living thing in the universe and replaced it with something new and experimental. Groovy!

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 02 novembre 2012 - 11:56 .

[Estelindis]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Ethics are malleable. It's a relative concept. It's not abad thing that the universe does not bend toone ethics or morality.

It's interesting that you state "it's a relative concept" so absolutely, not admitting question or change.  ;-)  So, you think that ethics is always malleable... or is it... malleable that it is malleable, and is it sometimes absolute?  The classic problem of moral relativism surfaces yet again.

In fact, I think that the discussion about an ethical standard actually reflects on the paragon/renegade dynamic.  One of the moral ideas that we are free to heed or not is, itself, the idea of an ethical standard that applies to every free, conscious actor.  As we played Mass Effect, Shepard was often asked to choose between, on the one hand, trying to treat humans and various aliens equally, and, on the other, showing prejudice and treating various parties preferentially or unfairly.  Anyone who chooses the former path believes that there is an implicit ethical standard that applies to everyone; for anyone who chose the latter, various being can be regarded as having as few rights as one pleases as long as you get to do what you want.  The first standard means that you are not allowed to murder someone else just because they are of another species, or because you happen to want something they have, or because you are an advanced machine race, etc.  The second standard means that nothing is beyond the pale if your ends justify the means.  Broadly speaking, the games assigned the first point of view to paragon responses and the second to renegade.  

Until close to the end, the game typically gave little drawback to choosing paragon options and huge drawbacks to renegade ones.  In my opinion, this was a mistake.  Equally a mistake was the final decision at the end of the game, which very much endorses a renegade point of view as defined above.  It created a very deep sense of mood whiplash as, until that point, the general thrust of the series had been optimistic rather than cynical (due to paragon choices rarely having negative consequences).

I think that there should have been drawbacks to the paragon path in the form of fewer resources, since objectives should have sometimes been lost because Shepard would not make certain compromises.  However, what followers one had should have been very versatile given that the paragon ethic values the differences that the galactic species bring to the table.  This should have allowed for greater flexibility.  Those working with Shepard would have been inspired to think outside the box and try to use their huge variety of abilities in creative ways, though I imagine that sometimes this might have led to mistakes and disasters.  

By contrast, I think that renegade should have been successful far more often in achieving goals and gaining resourcesh of the type that the particular renegade values.  The cost would have been alienating others and sometimes being the target of attacks from those who would have viewed Shepard as a threat almost as bad as the Reapers.  In terms of team spirit, the followers of Renegade Shepard would have been very disciplined; I imagine them as following Shepard's orders without question no matter what he demands, but not always being able to adapt in the field and not having as wide a variety of abilities as a pan-galactic force (vs. a disproportionately human one).  This may seem odd, since Renegade Shepard is often seen as a wild card, but in many ways s/he should actually be seen as extremely duty-bound if written correctly (in my view), given the kinds of sacrifices s/he views as expected and necessary.

I realise I've gone a bit off-topic here, but my point is that while there are several different points of view when it comes to ethics, the Mass Effect series seems to endorse a paragon perspective for most of the series and then veer widely off in a renegade direction at the end.  I think it would have been better served by giving each ethical perspective a self-consistent path all the way through the trilogy. 

That said: when I object to the moral failures of the endings, I am placing myself firmly in the paragon camp - at least as I have described paragon above.  

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That's counter by the fact that the catalyst already won and stopped and offered a way for Shepard to stop the reapers. The fact the crucible did not work and the catalyst could of let the reaper continue to harvest contradicts the issue hat it may be trying to trick you.

In fact, Shepard doesn't know this either.  When Shepard speaks with the Catalyst, in fact, almost nothing is certain from her or his point of view.  Shepard doesn't know if s/he is becoming indoctrinated or not, whether the Catalyst is speaking directly to the mind or whether it's happening physically.  Shepard could really have been transported up or maybe s/he is still lying in a pool of blood a metre from the console and, if s/he tried, could manage to wake up and do what s/he has to do.  From Shepard's point of view, since there could still be something s/he is able to do that the Catalyst wants to thwart (my personal favourite wish on this front has been for the Keeper research to actually matter, given that the Catalyst is deep inside an area probably only previously accessible by Keepers).  

If we are to evaluate Shepard's choice, we must look at what Shepard knows at the time of making the decision (as well as how free Shepard is to choose otherwise, what Shepard believes the consequences of her or his choice would be, and the inherent moral quality of the acts involved in carrying out the choice).  We can't go by what we know as players, only by what Shepard would have reason to believe.  

dreman9999 wrote...

2.Ummmm? It's not insane troll logic. It clearly tells you why and points out why it does it. True, it's because of the issue of organic vs synthestics but ...It was programmed to beleives this. The fact that it states it was created by being that reconized that their is an issue with organics and synthestic point to the fact that it is just doing what it's programmed to do.
You may not beleive there is an organic/synthesis issue or it has to be solve this way,you missing th fact that the catalyst did not have a choice in the matter of having to solve it or not. It was made and forced to solve the issue.
Also, the way it wants to solve everthing is to control all life, not kill it off. The reaper solution is just a way for it to control advance life by making it into something it can control, a reaper. The minds of the races it harvests are uploaded into a reaper body.

That fact that the Catalyst believes its own insane troll logic does not make that (il)logic any less insane.

Modifié par Estelindis, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:10 .

[Estelindis]

SpamBot2000 wrote...


Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time. And this time the Space Monster is you.

I agree with your whole post; I just wanted to single this out for comment.  For the record, if my Shepard had any reason to believe that she could control the Reapers (which she did not), and thus chose Control, her first act would have been to destroy all the Reapers (e.g. by ordering them to fly into a sun in a non-inhabited system); her second would have been to self-destruct.  This is pretty much the best ending I can come up with if I don't go with some variation of Indoctrination Theory, and even this is pretty much impossible since I don't believe Shepard can rationally trust the Catalyst.

Modifié par Estelindis, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:08 .

[dreman9999]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Not bothering to read the whole thread, since I've had my fill of justifications for the ending. But here's a brief comment on the ABC:

Destroy: You get to pull the trigger on those synthetic life forms you spent a trilogy in establishing as a valid form of life. All talk of "collateral damage" is an ethical failure in itself, because the very term is a military locution designed to de-emphasize to the point of abstraction the actual event of killing people other than enemy combatants.

Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time.

Synthesis: If you happen to believe in these wild theories that a life form's DNA has any bearing on the essence of that life form, surely it will follow that fusing that DNA with "synthetic DNA" (which is how the original ending put it, and as BioWare would have you believe, the EC "changed NOTHING!") would irrevocably alter the very essence of every living being everywhere for ever. If this seems like not such a big deal for you, you would be mistaken. It is the very biggest deal there is in the deal district of Deal City. Even the green-eyed, circuit-sportin' replicas of characters we all know and love you see posing for the ending slides are not those characters at all. They just look kinda similar. Those characters are no more. You just ENDED THE LIFE of every living thing in the universe and replaced it with something new and experimental. Groovy!

1.You're looking too much into the factthat the geth die in this choice. You missing the fact here that is a concept of saving who you can. As much one can not like to kill of the geth, it is an issue you have to face it you want to kill off the reapers. This is no different then any choice of life of a group in ME. But yyou have to undestand stopping the reapers does not mean killing them. My second point covers what  other choices you can make.
2. You missed the reason why the catalyst started the reaper solution. It was made to perserve organics and synthetics. It 's solution was to control both organics and synthetics. How the catalystdid that wasmakeing all advance life into something it can control. The issue on hand with the catalyst is not our destroction but our freedom and free will.
That is also the reaso way the Shepard ai would not harvest. It considers the issue of free will with organics and it's not a shackled ai.
Control is more like being the jailer of the reapers and being trapped in the same prison with them then being an overlord.
3.EC clearly showed what synthesis is. It's implantation down to the very dna. But your missing the prime issue with it. The catalyst goal is to control all life so it can perserve it. Synthesis does nto change that goal. It just a new way for it to control all life.

[galland]

Deep joy; dreman has joined in.

[Shaigunjoe]

Lets take a look at some of the founding ideas of modern ethics. The guy the wrote the book on ethics (or rather, a book called ethics), Spinoza had this to say about decision making.[from wikipedia]

"most people, even those that consider themselves to exercise free will, make moral decisions on the basis of imperfect sensory information, inadequate understanding of their mind and will, as well as emotions which are both outcomes of their contingent physical existence and forms of thought defective from being chiefly impelled by self-preservation."

Almost sounds like the mere act of existing(or role playing?) is a form of indoctrination. He goes on to say the solution is:

"increase the capacity of our reason to change the forms of thought produced by emotions and to fall in love with viewing problems requiring moral decision from the perspective of eternity"

This underscores the importance of looking at the effect of your final choice in the long term, which I think boils down to three simple things. Should people live in fear of technology? In fear of Shepard? Or put the fear of the unknown behind them and embrace new challenges.

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Ethics are malleable. It's a relative concept. It's not abad thing that the universe does not bend toone ethics or morality.

It's interesting that you state "it's a relative concept" so absolutely, not admitting question or change.  ;-)  So, you think that ethics is always malleable... or is it... malleable that it is malleable, and is it sometimes absolute?  The classic problem of moral relativism surfaces yet again.

In fact, I think that the discussion about an ethical standard actually reflects on the paragon/renegade dynamic.  One of the moral ideas that we are free to heed or not is, itself, the idea of an ethical standard that applies to every free, conscious actor.  As we played Mass Effect, Shepard was often asked to choose between, on the one hand, trying to treat humans and various aliens equally, and, on the other, showing prejudice and treating various parties preferentially or unfairly.  Anyone who chooses the former path believes that there is an implicit ethical standard that applies to everyone; for anyone who chose the latter, various being can be regarded as having as few rights as one pleases as long as you get to do what you want.  The first standard means that you are not allowed to murder someone else just because they are of another species, or because you happen to want something they have, or because you are an advanced machine race, etc.  The second standard means that nothing is beyond the pale if your ends justify the means.  Broadly speaking, the games assigned the first point of view to paragon responses and the second to renegade.  

Until close to the end, the game typically gave little drawback to choosing paragon options and huge drawbacks to renegade ones.  In my opinion, this was a mistake.  Equally a mistake was the final decision at the end of the game, which very much endorses a renegade point of view as defined above.  It created a very deep sense of mood whiplash as, until that point, the general thrust of the series had been optimistic rather than cynical (due to paragon choices rarely having negative consequences).

I think that there should have been drawbacks to the paragon path in the form of fewer resources, since objectives should have sometimes been lost because Shepard would not make certain compromises.  However, what followers one had should have been very versatile given that the paragon ethic values the differences that the galactic species bring to the table.  This should have allowed for greater flexibility.  Those working with Shepard would have been inspired to think outside the box and try to use their huge variety of abilities in creative ways, though I imagine that sometimes this might have led to mistakes and disasters.  

By contrast, I think that renegade should have been successful far more often in achieving goals and gaining resourcesh of the type that the particular renegade values.  The cost would have been alienating others and sometimes being the target of attacks from those who would have viewed Shepard as a threat almost as bad as the Reapers.  In terms of team spirit, the followers of Renegade Shepard would have been very disciplined; I imagine them as following Shepard's orders without question no matter what he demands, but not always being able to adapt in the field and not having as wide a variety of abilities as a pan-galactic force (vs. a disproportionately human one).  This may seem odd, since Renegade Shepard is often seen as a wild card, but in many ways s/he should actually be seen as extremely duty-bound if written correctly (in my view), given the kinds of sacrifices s/he views as expected and necessary.

I realise I've gone a bit off-topic here, but my point is that while there are several different points of view when it comes to ethics, the Mass Effect series seems to endorse a paragon perspective for most of the series and then veer widely off in a renegade direction at the end.  I think it would have been better served by giving each ethical perspective a self-consistent path all the way through the trilogy. 

That said: when I object to the moral failures of the endings, I am placing myself firmly in the paragon camp - at least as I have described paragon above.  

dreman9999 wrote...

1. That's counter by the fact that the catalyst already won and stopped and offered a way for Shepard to stop the reapers. The fact the crucible did not work and the catalyst could of let the reaper continue to harvest contradicts the issue hat it may be trying to trick you.

In fact, Shepard doesn't know this either.  When Shepard speaks with the Catalyst, in fact, almost nothing is certain from her or his point of view.  Shepard doesn't know if s/he is becoming indoctrinated or not, whether the Catalyst is speaking directly to the mind or whether it's happening physically.  Shepard could really have been transported up or maybe s/he is still lying in a pool of blood a metre from the console and, if s/he tried, could manage to wake up and do what s/he has to do.  From Shepard's point of view, since there could still be something s/he is able to do that the Catalyst wants to thwart (my personal favourite wish on this front has been for the Keeper research to actually matter, given that the Catalyst is deep inside an area probably only previously accessible by Keepers).  

If we are to evaluate Shepard's choice, we must look at what Shepard knows at the time of making the decision (as well as how free Shepard is to choose otherwise, what Shepard believes the consequences of her or his choice would be, and the inherent moral quality of the acts involved in carrying out the choice).  We can't go by what we know as players, only by what Shepard would have reason to believe.  

dreman9999 wrote...

2.Ummmm? It's not insane troll logic. It clearly tells you why and points out why it does it. True, it's because of the issue of organic vs synthestics but ...It was programmed to beleives this. The fact that it states it was created by being that reconized that their is an issue with organics and synthestic point to the fact that it is just doing what it's programmed to do.
You may not beleive there is an organic/synthesis issue or it has to be solve this way,you missing th fact that the catalyst did not have a choice in the matter of having to solve it or not. It was made and forced to solve the issue.
Also, the way it wants to solve everthing is to control all life, not kill it off. The reaper solution is just a way for it to control advance life by making it into something it can control, a reaper. The minds of the races it harvests are uploaded into a reaper body.

That fact that the Catalyst believes its own insane troll logic does not make that (il)logic any less insane.

1.The renagade choices don't have a negative consequence. In fact, alternate results happen based on renagade choices.
No matter what morality you choose to do in ME, you can still get the best ending in the game.
Also, both paths are ethical.The issue is not mood wiplash. It a concept that the universe does not bend to you morality and ethics.
You have to understand that it your morality verses the reality of the situation on hand. They gave you time to build a morality and put it on the chopping block to test the resolve of your morality. This is a game of hypatheticals. It about seeing what you will do based on the question ask. The question asked in teh end of the game does not conflict with the themes ofthe story because it fallowsthe concept that has been there since day one, you morality verse the situation on hand.

It would only be a conflict of that issue if you only had one choice in the end no matter what.

2.Yes, Shepard does know the catalyst is helping it. Shepard even ask s it why. The fact that Shepard find himself in a new location after the crucible does not work is a clue on what is going on. The facton the matter is that no matter what is going on, one clearfactis know. The crucible is not working. If the catayst want to win is does not need to both with Shepard at all.

3.It has no choicein the matter. If you make a computer to id fruit with words and you some how lable Pears as Apples, that computer is going to always call pears Apples till that info is fixed. Do you blame the computer for this mistake or the programmer?

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:27 .

[SpamBot2000]

dreman9999 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Not bothering to read the whole thread, since I've had my fill of justifications for the ending. But here's a brief comment on the ABC:

Destroy: You get to pull the trigger on those synthetic life forms you spent a trilogy in establishing as a valid form of life. All talk of "collateral damage" is an ethical failure in itself, because the very term is a military locution designed to de-emphasize to the point of abstraction the actual event of killing people other than enemy combatants.

Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time.

Synthesis: If you happen to believe in these wild theories that a life form's DNA has any bearing on the essence of that life form, surely it will follow that fusing that DNA with "synthetic DNA" (which is how the original ending put it, and as BioWare would have you believe, the EC "changed NOTHING!") would irrevocably alter the very essence of every living being everywhere for ever. If this seems like not such a big deal for you, you would be mistaken. It is the very biggest deal there is in the deal district of Deal City. Even the green-eyed, circuit-sportin' replicas of characters we all know and love you see posing for the ending slides are not those characters at all. They just look kinda similar. Those characters are no more. You just ENDED THE LIFE of every living thing in the universe and replaced it with something new and experimental. Groovy!

1.You're looking too much into the factthat the geth die in this choice. You missing the fact here that is a concept of saving who you can. As much one can not like to kill of the geth, it is an issue you have to face it you want to kill off the reapers. This is no different then any choice of life of a group in ME. But yyou have to undestand stopping the reapers does not mean killing them. My second point covers what  other choices you can make.
2. You missed the reason why the catalyst started the reaper solution. It was made to perserve organics and synthetics. It 's solution was to control both organics and synthetics. How the catalystdid that wasmakeing all advance life into something it can control. The issue on hand with the catalyst is not our destroction but our freedom and free will.
That is also the reaso way the Shepard ai would not harvest. It considers the issue of free will with organics and it's not a shackled ai.
Control is more like being the jailer of the reapers and being trapped in the same prison with them then being an overlord.
3.EC clearly showed what synthesis is. It's implantation down to the very dna. But your missing the prime issue with it. The catalyst goal is to control all life so it can perserve it. Synthesis does nto change that goal. It just a new way for it to control all life.

1. You are not really making an argument here.

2. Control is not "being trapped" anywhere. Who's trapping the Shepalyst? It's a voluntary choice you are betting it to make every second of every day for ever, no matter the circumstances. I wouldn't make that bet. Oh, and at least the original catalyst had a purpose. The Shepalyst presumably makes its own. Which could be anything.

3. The purpose the catalyst had for synthesis is irrelevant to the point of it erasing all life as it exists by overwriting it with hybrid DNA. The end result remains: what was, is no more. 

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...


Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time. And this time the Space Monster is you.

I agree with your whole post; I just wanted to single this out for comment.  For the record, if my Shepard had any reason to believe that she could control the Reapers (which she did not), and thus chose Control, her first act would have been to destroy all the Reapers (e.g. by ordering them to fly into a sun in a non-inhabited system); her second would have been to self-destruct.  This is pretty much the best ending I can come up with if I don't go with some variation of Indoctrination Theory, and even this is pretty much impossible since I don't believe Shepard can rationally trust the Catalyst.

As I said before. The issue of trust isc ountered by the fact that it's helping/interacting  you when it could be winning.

[dreman9999]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Not bothering to read the whole thread, since I've had my fill of justifications for the ending. But here's a brief comment on the ABC:

Destroy: You get to pull the trigger on those synthetic life forms you spent a trilogy in establishing as a valid form of life. All talk of "collateral damage" is an ethical failure in itself, because the very term is a military locution designed to de-emphasize to the point of abstraction the actual event of killing people other than enemy combatants.

Control: So you get some voiceover saying "I am the Shepalyst, and I am going to be an extra nice god". So that's what you say on day one of your INFINITY. Consider that ME posits the development of all civilizations in the galaxy violently interrupted at roughly 50 000 year intervals for the billion years preceding the events of ME. What kind of development would occur if this was not the case? Only stuff that the kindly Shreaper would feel no temptation to interfere with? Shreaper gonna shreap, it's just a matter of time.

Synthesis: If you happen to believe in these wild theories that a life form's DNA has any bearing on the essence of that life form, surely it will follow that fusing that DNA with "synthetic DNA" (which is how the original ending put it, and as BioWare would have you believe, the EC "changed NOTHING!") would irrevocably alter the very essence of every living being everywhere for ever. If this seems like not such a big deal for you, you would be mistaken. It is the very biggest deal there is in the deal district of Deal City. Even the green-eyed, circuit-sportin' replicas of characters we all know and love you see posing for the ending slides are not those characters at all. They just look kinda similar. Those characters are no more. You just ENDED THE LIFE of every living thing in the universe and replaced it with something new and experimental. Groovy!

1.You're looking too much into the factthat the geth die in this choice. You missing the fact here that is a concept of saving who you can. As much one can not like to kill of the geth, it is an issue you have to face it you want to kill off the reapers. This is no different then any choice of life of a group in ME. But yyou have to undestand stopping the reapers does not mean killing them. My second point covers what  other choices you can make.
2. You missed the reason why the catalyst started the reaper solution. It was made to perserve organics and synthetics. It 's solution was to control both organics and synthetics. How the catalystdid that wasmakeing all advance life into something it can control. The issue on hand with the catalyst is not our destroction but our freedom and free will.
That is also the reaso way the Shepard ai would not harvest. It considers the issue of free will with organics and it's not a shackled ai.
Control is more like being the jailer of the reapers and being trapped in the same prison with them then being an overlord.
3.EC clearly showed what synthesis is. It's implantation down to the very dna. But your missing the prime issue with it. The catalyst goal is to control all life so it can perserve it. Synthesis does nto change that goal. It just a new way for it to control all life.

1. You are not really making an argument here.

2. Control is not "being trapped" anywhere. Who's trapping the Shepalyst? It's a voluntary choice you are betting it to make every second of every day for ever, no matter the circumstances. I wouldn't make that bet. Oh, and at least the original catalyst had a purpose. The Shepalyst presumably makes its own. Which could be anything.

3. The purpose the catalyst had for synthesis is irrelevant to the point of it erasing all life as it exists by overwriting it with hybrid DNA. The end result remains: what was, is no more. 

1. My point here is that if you don't like the destory choice...Don't pick it.
2.Ok, then. It's locking you self in with them. But their is anotherissue your missing, the reapers are just tools. They have no free will.
Added, asyou said Shepalyst makes its own. Is it not your Shepard uploaded and turned into an AI?
Would that mean that you have the last say on what the ShepardAi does?

3.Wrong.It's not erasing all life. It just controling it. You not understanding it means of doing it's programming. It means is not to kill of life but to control it. It not over riding life with hybrid dna.Synthesis is just implantation down to the very dna.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 novembre 2012 - 12:37 .

[Estelindis]

dreman9999 wrote...
1.The renagade choices don't have a negative consequence. In fact, alternate results happen based on renagade choices.
No matter what morality you choose to do in ME, you can still get the best ending in the game.
Also, both paths are ethical.The issue is not mood wiplash. It a concept that the universe does not bend to you morality and ethics.
You have to understand that it your morality verses the reality of the situation on hand. They gave you time to build a morality and put it on the chopping block to test the resolve of your morality. This is a game of hypatheticals. It about seeing what you will do based on the question ask. The question asked in teh end of the game does not conflict with the themes ofthe story because it fallowsthe concept that has been there since day one, you morality verse the situation on hand.

It would only be a conflict of that issue if you only had one choice in the end no matter what.

But, from a paragon point of view, you do only have one choice in the end: evil.  It's three different kinds of evil (plus an abandonment of responsibility that causes everyone to die, which I can't bring myself to even evaluate alongside the other three), but it's still all evil.  If you believe that Saren and the Illusive Man were wrong, you can't choose Control.  If you believe in the right to self-determination, for the right of different people and species to retain their difference, you can't choose Synthesis.  If you believe that the geth have the right to keep existing, you can't choose Destroy.  And each one of these three beliefs is tied to values that underpin a paragon morality.

Also, when you refer to a chopping block, presumably this is the absolute test against which all standards are measured?  So what about that relative morality, eh?  :-p  Even if you are arguing for an ends-justifies-the-means morality, it is still a morality that you try to apply to everything, which you presumably view as absolute in its own way.

And clearly the renegade options involve a huge loss of content, since many NPCs are not alive if you choose renegade.  From a gameplay perspective, it's usually a loss, and not for any immense corresponding gain.  Almost always, things turn out fine if you take the paragon path, meaning that whatever a renegade sacrificed did not truly need to be sacrificed.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.Yes, Shepard does know the catalyst is helping it. Shepard even ask s it why. The fact that Shepard find himself in a new location after the crucible does not work is a clue on what is going on. The facton the matter is that no matter what is going on, one clearfactis know. The crucible is not working. If the catayst want to win is does not need to both with Shepard at all.

dreman9999 wrote...
As I said before. The issue of trust isc ountered by the fact that it's helping/interacting  you when it could be winning.

Yes, you did say it before.  And I say that Shepard cannot know it is in fact helping Shepard when it could be winning, for a variety of reasons which I won't repeat.  I have already explained why I think this, just as you have already explained what you posted in these quotes (which you don't seem to realise did not refute what I've argued on this point).  There's no point in us simply saying the same thing over and over again, so I suggest we leave this point, as we'll just waste each other's time.  

dreman9999 wrote...
3.It has no choicein the matter. If you make a computer to id fruit with words and you some how lable Pears as Apples, that computer is going to always call pears Apples till that info is fixed. Do you blame the computer for this mistake or the programmer?

...that doesn't matter.  Seriously.  It is literally irrelevant.  This isn't about blaming the Catalyst, it's about finding fault with what it thinks (not that it thinks it).

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

[SpamBot2000]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]1. My point here is that if you don't like the destory choice...Don't pick it.
2.Ok, then. It's locking you self in with them. But their is anotherissue your missing, the reapers are just tools. They have no free will.
Added, asyou said Shepalyst makes its own. Is it not your Shepard uploaded and turned into an AI?
Would that mean that you have the last say on what the ShepardAi does?

3.Wrong.It's not erasing all life. It just controling it. You not understanding it means of doing it's programming. It means is not to kill of life but to control it. It not over riding life with hybrid dna.Synthesis is just implantation down to the very dna.

[/quote]

1. I don't... I don't pick any of them because they are so awful. But sadly, destroy is the least awful of them all. At least there is a limit to it, unlike to the other two. 

2. Problematic in two ways: a) The Shepalyst is not Shepard. The other components are unknown. Their manifestation in the game is the catalyst, whose winning personality is hardly an endorsement. Even if it was in some way my Shepard calling the shots, this is INFINITY we are talking about. What mortal could ever envision what that means to the personality? To imagine for a second that any of us could is such hubris that tragedies are made of.

3. "Implantation down to the very DNA" seems to be your personal interpretation of synthesis, but even so, the organism would be built out of this code, including the implants. And presumably the synthesized cells would self-replicate the implants as well, otherwise synthesis would wear out rather quickly. And this still leaves the issue of every organism replaced by some hybrid thing. Unhybridized beings would no longer exist. They would be gone out of existence. Say I replace blueprints for your house with a different set, then build that new building in the same exact spatial co-ordinates your house used to be in. Where is your house now? Did I merely "control" it?

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 02 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[dreman9999]

[quote]SpamBot2000 wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]1. My point here is that if you don't like the destory choice...Don't pick it.
2.Ok, then. It's locking you self in with them. But their is anotherissue your missing, the reapers are just tools. They have no free will.
Added, asyou said Shepalyst makes its own. Is it not your Shepard uploaded and turned into an AI?
Would that mean that you have the last say on what the ShepardAi does?

3.Wrong.It's not erasing all life. It just controling it. You not understanding it means of doing it's programming. It means is not to kill of life but to control it. It not over riding life with hybrid dna.Synthesis is just implantation down to the very dna.

[/quote]

1. I don't... I don't pick any of them because they are so awful. But sadly, destroy is the least awful of them all. At least there is a limit to it, unlike to the other two. 

2. Problematic in two ways: a) The Shepalyst is not Shepard. The other components are unknown. Their manifestation in the game is the catalyst, whose winning personality is hardly an endorsement. Even if it was in some way my Shepard calling the shots, this is INFINITY we are talking about. What mortal could ever envision what that means to the personality? To imagine for a second that any of us could is such hubris that tragedies are made of.

3. "Implantation down to the very DNA" seems to be your personal interpretation of synthesis, but even so, the organism would be built out of this code, including the implants. And presumably the synthesized cells would self-replicate the implants as well, otherwise synthesis would wear out rather quickly. And this still leaves the issue of every organism replaced by some hybrid thing. Unhybrized beings would no longer exist. They would be gone out of existence. Say I replace to blueprints for your house with another set, then build that new building in the same exact spatial co-ordinates your house used to be in. Where is your house now? Did I merely "contro"l it?

[/quote]1. Then you going to have to live with you and everyone you care for dieing over your morals. That isthe double edge sword of morality and free will. Free will also means you have the free will of self destruction.

2.1. But it is your Shepard the ending makesitclear youShepardis up loaded.. 2.Who says you have to hold that power for ever? What it stopping from latter having the reapers destoryed and freeing yourself?

3."Implantation down to the very DNA" was whatwas shown to us in the synthesis ending. In Synthesis we see endless ammounts of nanomachines being build around dna. That would mean implantation. That is not an over ride. It's not a case of replacing a houses blue prints. It's taking that blue print and add on to it as you add on to the house.
Added, that is a form of control

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1.The renagade choices don't have a negative consequence. In fact, alternate results happen based on renagade choices.
No matter what morality you choose to do in ME, you can still get the best ending in the game.
Also, both paths are ethical.The issue is not mood wiplash. It a concept that the universe does not bend to you morality and ethics.
You have to understand that it your morality verses the reality of the situation on hand. They gave you time to build a morality and put it on the chopping block to test the resolve of your morality. This is a game of hypatheticals. It about seeing what you will do based on the question ask. The question asked in teh end of the game does not conflict with the themes ofthe story because it fallowsthe concept that has been there since day one, you morality verse the situation on hand.

It would only be a conflict of that issue if you only had one choice in the end no matter what.

But, from a paragon point of view, you do only have one choice in the end: evil.  It's three different kinds of evil (plus an abandonment of responsibility that causes everyone to die, which I can't bring myself to even evaluate alongside the other three), but it's still all evil.  If you believe that Saren and the Illusive Man were wrong, you can't choose Control.  If you believe in the right to self-determination, for the right of different people and species to retain their difference, you can't choose Synthesis.  If you believe that the geth have the right to keep existing, you can't choose Destroy.  And each one of these three beliefs is tied to values that underpin a paragon morality.

Also, when you refer to a chopping block, presumably this is the absolute test against which all standards are measured?  So what about that relative morality, eh?  :-p  Even if you are arguing for an ends-justifies-the-means morality, it is still a morality that you try to apply to everything, which you presumably view as absolute in its own way.

And clearly the renegade options involve a huge loss of content, since many NPCs are not alive if you choose renegade.  From a gameplay perspective, it's usually a loss, and not for any immense corresponding gain.  Almost always, things turn out fine if you take the paragon path, meaning that whatever a renegade sacrificed did not truly need to be sacrificed.

dreman9999 wrote...
2.Yes, Shepard does know the catalyst is helping it. Shepard even ask s it why. The fact that Shepard find himself in a new location after the crucible does not work is a clue on what is going on. The facton the matter is that no matter what is going on, one clearfactis know. The crucible is not working. If the catayst want to win is does not need to both with Shepard at all.

dreman9999 wrote...
As I said before. The issue of trust isc ountered by the fact that it's helping/interacting  you when it could be winning.

Yes, you did say it before.  And I say that Shepard cannot know it is in fact helping Shepard when it could be winning, for a variety of reasons which I won't repeat.  I have already explained why I think this, just as you have already explained what you posted in these quotes (which you don't seem to realise did not refute what I've argued on this point).  There's no point in us simply saying the same thing over and over again, so I suggest we leave this point, as we'll just waste each other's time.  

dreman9999 wrote...
3.It has no choicein the matter. If you make a computer to id fruit with words and you some how lable Pears as Apples, that computer is going to always call pears Apples till that info is fixed. Do you blame the computer for this mistake or the programmer?

...that doesn't matter.  Seriously.  It is literally irrelevant.  This isn't about blaming the Catalyst, it's about finding fault with what it thinks (not that it thinks it).

1...What? You don't think a renagade would not consider the choices on hand to be evil. I think you need to look more on to the concepts of morality of renagade and paragon more and how relative each morality can be to other renagade and paragon moralities. Renagades and paragons don't see things one way...I have 3 of each I can vouch for on how differently they see things.
How the ending choices can be seen is based on the person. The concept of good and evil are relative...Even from paragon to paragon. At most we can say is that thay are immoral. 
Added it's up to use to consider the value of the argument that have been given. Saren and Tim had different reason for wanting to pick the choice that is their means to their end. Just because choice doesnto mean you inheritly agree with them or doing so forthe same reason.The relivence of TIm and Seran points is up tot he person.
Also, I'm not arguing for ends vs means. I'm just pointing out you facing an issue of your morality vs reality. That the universe does not bend to your morality. I'm not say to have to do what you have to do to get to the result you want .Just that you have toconsiderthe fact that you have the face the reality of the situation on hand and consequences that will accure beased on you reaction because ofthe situation on hand.

On the renagade losses....Is that even an issue? Is that not up to the person to call it a loss? Added, can't that person find another way to counter that loss? The clearly happens on Tuchanka if you kill Wrexin ME1 and Eve dies.
2.Not that I added "interacting" to may point as well.You have to consider why the catalyst is bothering with Shepard when it can clearly win.
3. But that is relivent. Figuring out why it thinks that way helps you find a way to solve itand makes sure it does not happen agein.

[SpamBot2000]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Then you going to have to live with you and everyone you care for dieing over your morals. That isthe double edge sword of morality and free will. Free will also means you have the free will of self destruction.

2.1. But it is your Shepard the ending makesitclear youShepardis up loaded.. 2.Who says you have to hold that power for ever? What it stopping from latter having the reapers destoryed and freeing yourself?

3."Implantation down to the very DNA" was whatwas shown to us in the synthesis ending. In Synthesis we see endless ammounts of nanomachines being build around dna. That would mean implantation. That is not an over ride. It's not a case of replacing a houses blue prints. It's taking that blue print and add on to it as you add on to the house.
Added, that is a form of control

1. No, I have to live without playing ME3. If that was BioWare's intent, wahey! Mission accomplished. 

2. Head canon.

3. Adding to DNA is altering the DNA.

Edit: Hmmm... why is there an "end quote" marker at the beginning of your first lines? Makes careless quoting come out wrong.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 02 novembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[dreman9999]

[quote]SpamBot2000 wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]1. Then you going to have to live with you and everyone you care for dieing over your morals. That isthe double edge sword of morality and free will. Free will also means you have the free will of self destruction.

2.1. But it is your Shepard the ending makesitclear youShepardis up loaded.. 2.Who says you have to hold that power for ever? What it stopping from latter having the reapers destoryed and freeing yourself?

3."Implantation down to the very DNA" was whatwas shown to us in the synthesis ending. In Synthesis we see endless ammounts of nanomachines being build around dna. That would mean implantation. That is not an over ride. It's not a case of replacing a houses blue prints. It's taking that blue print and add on to it as you add on to the house.
Added, that is a form of control[/quote]

1. No, I have to live without playing ME3. If that was BioWare's intent, wahey! Mission accomplished. 

2. Head canon.

3. Adding to DNA is altering the DNA.

[/quote]
1.Denial is a river in Egypt.
2. Open ended ending=I can use head cannon. Saying the reapers can reap agein in destroy is also a head cannon.
3.Ok then, then it not replacing dna ether. I did not say it was not altering DNA. My point is that it is altering DNA. That still means the catalyst goal istocontrol.