1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Dhoozy77]

because it would ruin OTHER people enjoyment if you get a happy ending. For some they like the ambiguous nature of the ending to make us.. "think." Now I would agree if there was only one ending. Then of course that is the creator vision but from the start Mass Effect were a multiple ending game and that rarely do they choose a canonical version to go with and when they do they still keep your previous choice in mind.

So if They were to give you ****ty choices like "Control" Where you would eventually keep on reaping or Synthesis which let you turn into abomination or destory where everything get redundantly destroyed. Giving people another ending where Shepard live happy ever after with his love interest would ruin people immersion , in other word they will think that the happy ending spoil their destory ending. I have no idea why they would seeing as one ending is just as valid as another.

[thefallen2far]

CronoDragoon wrote...
In Fallen's examples, the worst you could say is that the endings promote utter consequentialism as the desirable morality: they do not refute all truth but rather suggest that idealism is useless and that all decisions should be made based on maximizing utility for the many. Nihilism would be to suggest that Shepard and the galaxy would have been better off screwing and eating cheeseburgers until they were harvested rather than fight.

The idea of moral nihilism is that there is no inherent right or wrong. As an example: murder, genocide, theft, terrorism, arbitrarily rewriting the code of every life in the universe, unilaterally controlling the most poweful weapons in the universe and slavery aren't inherently evil, but options of the individual for their own desireable outcome. It's not, "don't do anything because there's no reason to do it". It's that any act is morally justified because there is no evil or bad or unspeakable act.

"A nihilist is a man that judges the world as it is that it shouldn't be as to the world as it should be doesn't exist."

So the horrible acts perpetrated aren't inherently wrong because there is no wrong. Consequentialism is also a possible interpretaion in the sense that you die to save AI or let the AI die to save yourself and destroy your enemy... but also, they were glossing over these endings as being "happy outcomes" ignoring the acts themselves as good or evil. They'rejust actions. Not doing the actions because of attachment of humanistic belief of truth and morals result in the wiping out of civilization.... nihilism.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:44 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

thefallen2far wrote...
So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful

How is it "revealed to be a lie"? Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth? What happens is, you ugather all the strength you can but the enemy is stil too strong. You tried but you fell short. It has nothing to do with morality.

thefallen2far wrote...
Being able to overcome your obstacles without denying yur moral beliefs would be the opposite of nihilism.

But different people have different sets of morals. For example, while I consider Synthesis controversial, I do not think it is a crime against life. I also recognize that sometimes in war you might have to sacrifice some to save everyone else and thus am able to choose Destroy.

Do you consider everyone who has different set of values than you immoral? From what I read, you seem to think that things you disagree with automatically equal nihilism.

[iggy4566]

Cause Bioware hates making money.

[KevShep]

iggy4566 wrote...

Cause Bioware hates making money.

I dont think that they put the gamers first...And thats there problem.

[Iakus]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...
So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful

How is it "revealed to be a lie"? Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth? What happens is, you ugather all the strength you can but the enemy is stil too strong. You tried but you fell short. It has nothing to do with morality.

Well, there were these two games called Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2...

[thefallen2far]

Mad-Hamlet wrote...

Nihilsm is not a philosphy per se. It is the devaluation of all values. Similar to extreme reletivism in that it attempts to make all values equal- worthless. The devestation of galactic civilization in any ending of ME3 would not be the truimph of Nilihism, it would be the victory of The REAPERS values...whatever those are.

I'd like to read your source or arguement for this. 1. Nihilism is most certainly a philosophy. Nihilism has nothing to do with lack of values as it has to do with demoralalizing action as complete objectivism. 2. It's anarchistic in nature, so the downfall of all life in civilization is in no way a result of it as the tear down of established truth of morals, governing bodies and religion is impossible if there are no civilization. Basically, you're just pulling BS out out of your rump.

And I'm not touching your Watchmen arguments with a thirty foot barge pole.lll

I don't care what your opinion of Watchmen is. I'm not asking. The only reason I did answer the question is because omeone asked me. If liking the Watchmen is a requirement for playing this game, it should've been on the box.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 29 janvier 2013 - 05:47 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...
So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful

How is it "revealed to be a lie"? Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth? What happens is, you ugather all the strength you can but the enemy is stil too strong. You tried but you fell short. It has nothing to do with morality.

Well, there were these two games called Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2...

You do not unite anyone in ME1 and ME2. You can do it all on bare minimum and live.

[Iakus]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...
So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful

How is it "revealed to be a lie"? Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth? What happens is, you ugather all the strength you can but the enemy is stil too strong. You tried but you fell short. It has nothing to do with morality.

Well, there were these two games called Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2...

You do not unite anyone in ME1 and ME2. You can do it all on bare minimum and live.

Yes.  You unite people against a seemingly unstaoppable force.  Smaller groups for comparatively smaller threats.  Together, you stopped Saren.  Together, you beat the Collectors.  Bigger threats, unite more people.  

[thefallen2far]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth?

In the game? Yes. Are you saying the point of uniting the forces in the galaxy was for skits 'n giggles? You were amassing an army just for the fun of it? Why would you waste your time amassing a useless army? I thought it was to create a united front against a common enemy, but if you want to think of it as him having chasing butterflies with bullets, that's cool.

thefallen2far wrote...
Do you consider everyone who has different set of values than you immoral? From what I read, you seem to think that things you disagree with automatically equal nihilism.

No, but if you think there's no question of moral ambivelance, then yes, I think you might be a nihilist. It's fine, if you don't believe in god, I might think you're an aetheist.

[Mouton_Alpha]

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...
So, the established belief that the united efforts of peoples to overcome a seemingly unstopable force, only to be revealed that truth is a lie, and you have to sacrifice your moral truths to be successful

How is it "revealed to be a lie"? Is the idea that "together we will overcome everything" some kind of universal truth? What happens is, you ugather all the strength you can but the enemy is stil too strong. You tried but you fell short. It has nothing to do with morality.

Well, there were these two games called Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2...

You do not unite anyone in ME1 and ME2. You can do it all on bare minimum and live.

Yes.  You unite people against a seemingly unstaoppable force.  Smaller groups for comparatively smaller threats.  Together, you stopped Saren.  Together, you beat the Collectors.  Bigger threats, unite more people.  

Even on that small scale, uniting or not uniting anyone is entirely optional. It is not necessary to succeed at all.

[EnvyTB075]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

A super bleak ending would work well with a game that was super bleak....which it wasn't.

None of the endings was super bleak or even bleak. They simply weren't perfect.

Also, Spec Ops

Just repeating what i keep hearing thrown about, "Oh its a war story, you can't have happy because its super bleak and artsy."

Anyone who has played Spec Ops will tell you that a bleak game needs to be bleak the whole way through. The effects of the war properly shown, not just the status quo the whole way through. Aside from a death here and there (nothing the Normandy hasn't gone through before), there is nothing truly bleak about the game, because BioWare forgot that you can't just tell something and expect people to be emotionally invested. You have to show it.

What did you think when you saw the bodies in the torture chambers or the bodies handing from nooses along the street in Spec Ops? We know this evil DOES happen in the world, but how did you feel actually seeing a visual representation?

As an example, consider how you would react if Lugo and Joker were an analogous character, that the same way Lugo is effected by the events in Spec Ops is the same way that Joker reacts. That would warrent a game with no happy ending for sure.

[MegaSovereign]

You didn't blow up the Collector base using friendship.

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You didn't blow up the Collector base using friendship.

Yeah I did.

[Darth Krytie]

I'll shamelessly admit that I wish there were a way for Garrus and Shepard to have little human-turian babies. Even if it was something I only could get on a second playthrough and I had to meta-game the hell out of all three games to get. It's not that I hated the endings, because I didn't. Or that I didn't see the logic in having every ending have pros/cons, because that actually was interesting. It's just that I don't think it would have been that much of a jab at the integrity of the ending to have a super, super hidden ending, requiring whatever EMS score and whatever choices to get...in which you get to see Shepard and Garrus (or Steve or Miranda or Liara or Kaidan) have some yay, we saved the universe smoochies.

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

So the horrible acts perpetrated aren't inherently wrong because there is no wrong. Consequentialism is also a possible interpretaion in the sense that you die to save AI or let the AI die to save yourself and destroy your enemy... but also, they were glossing over these endings as being "happy outcomes" ignoring the acts themselves as good or evil. They're just actions. Not doing the actions because of attachment of humanistic belief of truth and morals result in the wiping out of civilization.... nihilism.

Yep, to a consequentialist acts are not inherently right or wrong, and you have to judge them on their..... consequences. And the consequences of using the Crucible are much, much better than the consequences of not using it. (Which way to use the Crucible is the most moral is another argument)

That doesn't prove nihilism. If nihilism was true then you wouldn't have a reason to use the Crucible, but we all know that you do have a reason to use the Crucible.

Believing that acts have no inherent morality isn't nihilism. It's a statement that both nihilists and consequentialists can agree with, but they get there for different reasons and go from there to different conclusions.

Edit: honestly, I'm not sure there really are any nihilists in the sense we're talking about. Moral relativists exist, sure, but it's one thing to say that moral judgments are determined by a particular culture and tradition, and it's quite another to say that they're all false. Unless you're a non-cognitivist; if you think moral judgments aren't statements in the first place, trying to assign true or false values to them is just a mistake.  I guess one could see that as a kind of nihilism, though that isn't how the term is typically used.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2013 - 06:11 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep, to a consequentialist acts are not inherently right or wrong, and you have to judge them on their..... consequences. And the consequences of using the Crucible are much, much better than the consequences of not using it. (Which way to use the Crucible is the most moral is another argument)

That doesn't prove nihilism. If nihilism was true then you wouldn't have a reason to use the Crucible, but we all know that you do have a reason to use the Crucible.

Believing that acts have no inherent morality isn't nihilism. It's a statement that both nihilists and consequentialists can agree with, but they get there for different reasons and go from there to different conclusions.

Edit: honestly, I'm not sure there really are any nihilists in the sense we're talking about. Moral relativists exist, sure, but it's one thing to say that moral judgments are determined by a particular culture and tradition, and it's quite another to say that they're all false. Unless you're a non-cognitivist; if you think moral judgments aren't statements in the first place, trying to assign true or false values to them is just a mistake.  I guess one could see that as a kind of nihilism, though that isn't how the term is typically used.

I have never been a fan of "the ends justify the means"  Yet that seems to be the excuse for all three endings.  Sorry I play games to be a hero, not a bad**** undead renegade cyborg.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bah. no 2010 pseudophilosophical crap in a 1980s sci-fi action-adventure RPG. Especially at the end.

[AB Souldier]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You didn't blow up the Collector base using friendship.

Lol yes i did.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

I have never been a fan of "the ends justify the means"  Yet that seems to be the excuse for all three endings.  Sorry I play games to be a hero, not a bad**** undead renegade cyborg.

What's a "hero?" Someone who saves the galaxy?

[Malchat]

Questions like the one in the thread title are very interesting to me... not for the sake of argument but just to get a better grasp of the authors' intentions and why they thought this was an appropriate finale.

Sadly, we only get to ask these questions in the echo chamber of the community because no author will ever address the writing process and structuring of ME3's story beyond a few softball interviews and low-content blog posts.

As near as I can tell, they DID strive for a feel-good ending, Shepard's tragic sacrifice igniting a fire of hope. Maybe not a happy ending with blue babies or a house on Rannoch but still, they probably thought Shepard's legacy would leave the audience feeling upbeat and optimistic about the Galaxy.

But somewhere along the way, they failed to execute this properly: instead of a satisfying, cathartic payoff, they created confusion by revealing the Reaper's motivations (using the big bad as a mouthpiece), introducing an existential final choice with no foreshadowing and rushing the ending cinematics.

The EC was their best attempt to address these flaws and make the whole thing feel more positive, but the story flaws are so integral to the final act that they couldn't change it completely (which, I guess, they tried to explain with the much-derided 'artistic integrity' argument.)

I'm pretty sure that prior to the release, the developers genuinely thought the ending was a happy one, albeit tinged with a sense of loss. The backlash seems to have caught them completely off-guard... and created a rift with their audience that made any true dialogue impossible.

I'm sad we can only guess at these things. I'm hoping that, some time from now, when NDAs and painful memories fade, we get the full story.

Until then: happy speculating.

Modifié par Malchat, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:21 .

[PainCakesx]

My understanding is there was originally a truly happy ending where Shepard lives unambiguously and destroys the Reapers. A "golden" ending so to speak.

It was scrapped late into production. I wonder why they did that.

[VLX11387]

PainCakesx wrote...

My understanding is there was originally a truly happy ending where Shepard lives unambiguously and destroys the Reapers. A "golden" ending so to speak.

It was scrapped late into production. I wonder why they did that.

Because they hate their fans  lol jk 

[CommanderVyse]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

Even on that small scale, uniting or not uniting anyone is entirely optional. It is not necessary to succeed at all.

To succeed? No, it is not necessary to unite everyone, but not everyone with live. Maybe Wrex will die in ME1. Or your squadmates in ME2. Saren can still be stopped, the Collector base can  be destroyed. You don't even need Shepard to live to achieve the latter.

To have the "happy" ending where everyone lives? Yes, you need to unite everyone. Convince Wrex in ME1, paragon or renagade. Gain the loyalty of the squadmates in ME2.