1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Xenite]

The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.

We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.

[Mouton_Alpha]

thefallen2far wrote...

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.

I had an impression people call the endings nihlistic. I had an impression - perhaps an errooneus one - that by that they meant the game violates the general real-life consensus morality, not artificial in-game morality. If we are discussing the latter, then Control is good, because it is blue.

thefallen2far wrote...

Mouton_Alpha 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.

Of course there is moral ambivalence in the endings, that is what makes the choice between them interesting. That alone does not nihilism make.

[vallore]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

Does Destroy provide the knowledge and manpower needed to quickly  repair the mass relays?

Apparently yes, if you listen to the Catalyst. Not only did BW take out the line about them being destroyed, but it also says that any technology affected by the blast can be quickly repaired. It's analogous to a giant pat on the back from BW saying, "don't worry, it'll work out."

Does Destroy create "perfect understanding" between organics and synthetics?

Most Destroyers I've seen are perfectly satisfied believing they've either solved the organic/synthetic problem (by claiming Rannoch invalidates the Catalyst) or at the least earns the galaxy the right to decide their own answer to the problem. Destroyers aren't having regrets about the possibilities of Synthesis.

Does Destroy create an immortal fleet of sentient dreadnoughts to watch over the galaxy?

Destroyers don't want that. You've been on these boards and I'm sure made the same argument, to the effect of "that's enslavement" or "that's far too dangerous" or such.

These are really all arguments that would be made by Control or Synthesis people to support their endings. But based on the arguments I've seen made by Destroyers for their own ending, none of these issues really gives them pause in their own minds. You yourself said you wouldn't hesitate to pick a Destroy with a reunion scene and relay destruction instead of geth/EDI. MEHEM is even further unbalanced.

The endings are not balanced by the extra costs of Destroy because they add nothing to the nature of the question posed by the endings:

Does the player believes in the catalyst argument or not?

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

Adding extra sacrifices to destroy is not going to make control and synthesis more appealing for them. All that it creates is what we got: equally undesirable endings.

On the other hand, if a player believes in the catalyst, Destroy shouldn’t be appealing, as the cost is all organic life in the future, regardless of the existence or not of immediate costs.

[wright1978]

vallore wrote...

Does the player believes in the catalyst argument or not?

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

Adding extra sacrifices to destroy is not going to make control and synthesis more appealing for them. All that it creates is what we got: equally undesirable endings.

On the other hand, if a player believes in the catalyst, Destroy shouldn’t be appealing, as the cost is all organic life in the future, regardless of the existence or not of immediate costs.

The issue is the incompatability of destroy and the catalyst. If i don't believe/trust it then i won't believe that following any of its options are in any way positive/trustworthy(without serious headcanoning that i'm hoping shooting tube will kill catalyst). They need to be separated imo, which would would make the catalyst a marginally more reasonable plot device, by having it arguing for only options that in someway will deal with the issue it believes exists. Player should have option to carry on activating crucible(destroy), ignoring any attempts by catalyst to get player to listen to its alternatives.

[vallore]

wright1978 wrote...

vallore wrote...

Does the player believes in the catalyst argument or not?

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

Adding extra sacrifices to destroy is not going to make control and synthesis more appealing for them. All that it creates is what we got: equally undesirable endings.

On the other hand, if a player believes in the catalyst, Destroy shouldn’t be appealing, as the cost is all organic life in the future, regardless of the existence or not of immediate costs.

The issue is the incompatability of destroy and the catalyst. If i don't believe/trust it then i won't believe that following any of its options are in any way positive/trustworthy(without serious headcanoning that i'm hoping shooting tube will kill catalyst). They need to be separated imo, which would would make the catalyst a marginally more reasonable plot device, by having it arguing for only options that in someway will deal with the issue it believes exists. Player should have option to carry on activating crucible(destroy), ignoring any attempts by catalyst to get player to listen to its alternatives.

Well, I was addressing the problem strictly at the player’s level. But at the character level, as you say, the problem is even worse, as the result of the destroy option is not obvious, requiring Shepard to trust the catalyst to some degree, even if she doesn’t. This situation is highly ironical.

The character is forced to make a gamble instead of an informed choice. Therefore, the entire fate of the galaxy is the result of a hunch Shepard had, (or rather the result of “forcing “the player into metagaming). As role playing experience, that is not particularly enjoyable, to put it mildly.

Separating Destroy from the other choices would make sense. I suspect it wasn’t done due to the same reasons the writers burdened Destroy with extra costs, and why the “Shepard lives” is nothing more than an ambiguous scene lasting a few seconds: the catalyst argument is weak, unconvincing and requires artificial “balance” by making Destroy worse. If so, imo, it doesn’t work.

[3DandBeyond]

vallore wrote...

wright1978 wrote...


The issue is the incompatability of destroy and the catalyst. If i don't believe/trust it then i won't believe that following any of its options are in any way positive/trustworthy(without serious headcanoning that i'm hoping shooting tube will kill catalyst). They need to be separated imo, which would would make the catalyst a marginally more reasonable plot device, by having it arguing for only options that in someway will deal with the issue it believes exists. Player should have option to carry on activating crucible(destroy), ignoring any attempts by catalyst to get player to listen to its alternatives.

Well, I was addressing the problem strictly at the player’s level. But at the character level, as you say, the problem is even worse, as the result of the destroy option is not obvious, requiring Shepard to trust the catalyst to some degree, even if she doesn’t. This situation is highly ironical.

The character is forced to make a gamble instead of an informed choice. Therefore, the entire fate of the galaxy is the result of a hunch Shepard had, (or rather the result of “forcing “the player into metagaming). As role playing experience, that is not particularly enjoyable, to put it mildly.

Separating Destroy from the other choices would make sense. I suspect it wasn’t done due to the same reasons the writers burdened Destroy with extra costs, and why the “Shepard lives” is nothing more than an ambiguous scene lasting a few seconds: the catalyst argument is weak, unconvincing and requires artificial “balance” by making Destroy worse. If so, imo, it doesn’t work.

You put it in the right terms, Shepard is gambling.  But, it's even worse than that.  It's like going into a casino and knowing all that you know about them-they didn't build all that glitz by losing to customers.  But it's even worse than that.  The casino has shown that no matter what you do, a huge portion of your winnings is meant to be given to the casino.  So, even if you win, you lose.

If you go by strict roleplaying, there's no logical way to make a choice.  People don't gamble everything if they don't fully understand the game.  And they don't gamble away everything without at least being able to convince themselves they might win. I don't play Craps, I don't understand it.  So, I'm not going to walk into a casino with my life's savings and bet it all on one play (or whatever it's called, toss of the dice) at Craps.  Even if I understand it, I know there's a huge likelihood I will lose.  So, I walk over to the Slot Machines.  I still will most likely lose, but I understand it, and it will take me longer to lose.

[3DandBeyond]

Xenite wrote...

The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.

We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.

Actually, there's no way to know any of this for sure-he's said a lot of things.  It's not like they are consistent in saying something and meaning it.

And, at some point it's hoped that someone will say to them that synthesis as they've shown it, makes no sense.  As well as some organic evolution to synthesis (it just happens) is a contradiction in terms and therefore, it makes no sense.

Then, I want them to take a look at (at least in the US) tv commercials.  Look at the wonderful side effects and the failure rates of synthetic products within organic bodies and then tell me it would be a great idea to have it glued into our DNA.  Pacemakers, knee joints, hip replacements, meshes, and so on.  Everything fails.  Organics die.  Tech falls apart or degrades or decays.  Computer coding decays.  So, yes, let's just insert it in all of us and have fun.  What mechanic is going to fix that-your DNA breaks, so the solution is more tech.

And within their own story they created the one about the Zha'til.  In that, people had tech forcibly integrated into them and the tech took over.  So, I see no problem with unknown tech being fully integrated with organic DNA.  No idea what tech.  Nor is there any problem with synthetics getting full understanding of organics (a now extinct race)-who cares to know where that understanding comes from?

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

What are you saying by this? Do you think nihilists are okay with wiping out of civilization. Do you think a nihilist believes that it's okay for all life in the universe to be wiped out? That's not the philosophy. It's that established truthes are fictional. It's not, "there's no reason to kill that guy because, whatevs... you know." It's "there's nothing wrong with killing that guy. Don't feel guilty about it."

Believing that acts have no inherent morality isn't nihilism.

What? Yes it is. Have you read Neitchie? That's the sole aspect of nihilism. The idea of inherent moral institutes are lies. That's it. What examples or sources are you going off of? Like, which books did you read that nihilism is.... I don't know.... stoners?

I'm saying the endings are nihilistic in the sense there's an established moral truth in the fiction, throughout the game. Paragon vs. Renegade is a sole aspect of navagating through the game. You can do what's moralistic [paragon] or do something that's consequentialist [renegade]. In the end, you're forced to accept there is no moralist choice and if you try to do the moralist choice [refusal] thencivilization gets wiped out. If there was a way to hold truth in morality and could to overcome the enemy but there would be a larger price, that's consequentialism. To say if you choose to be moralistic results in wiping out civilization is nihilism. In order to understand your stanse, i'd really need to know what article or book you read that defines nihilism.

[CronoDragoon]

thefallen2far wrote...
What? Yes it is. Have you read Neitchie? That's the sole aspect of nihilism. The idea of inherent moral institutes are lies. That's it. What examples or sources are you going off of? Like, which books did you read that nihilism is.... I don't know.... stoners?

I think you are using the wrong terminology for inherent. Inherent has a specific meaning in ethics conversation, closely identified with deontological arguments as opposed to consequentialist ones. Consequentialist arguments state that acts are not inherently moral or immoral but rather depend on the effects produced in the world. In this sense they still believe in moral truth; the morality of an act is merely shifted from the act to the effect of the act.

Nietzsche's visualization of a nihilist is actually quite close to a stoner. Recall his example of the "Last Man." The last man is someone who "has his little pleasures for the day" and that's it. He eats food, maybe he sunbathes, but he has forsaken all ideals and therefore all abstract goals in life. This is because he finds no reason to focus on higher beliefs having found no desirable basis for them.

This is distinct from moral relativism in that relativists still believe in the desirability of certain acts; they just don't belief that their beliefs are universally true.

[CronoDragoon]

thefallen2far wrote...
What are you saying by this? Do you think nihilists are okay with wiping out of civilization. Do you think a nihilist believes that it's okay for all life in the universe to be wiped out? That's not the philosophy. It's that established truthes are fictional. It's not, "there's no reason to kill that guy because, whatevs... you know." It's "there's nothing wrong with killing that guy. Don't feel guilty about it."

Since you seem to be taking your idea of nihilism from Nieztsche, your last quote doesn't match up, because it implies there is still right action to be distinct from wrong action. Nihilists don't believe in moral right and wrong. Does a nihilist care about civilization being wiped out? Yes, but only because he doesn't want to die, not because of some sense of injustice or an abstract belief in the value of intelligent life.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 29 janvier 2013 - 06:13 .

[CronoDragoon]

vallore wrote...

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

But because of the circumstances surrounding the endings, Control and perhaps Synthesis can have appeal outside of the question of the Catalyst's argument.

There are going to be people who would choose, Destroy, Control, and Synthesis no matter what. The current structure of the endings takes some of the people who could be swayed by the particulars of the endings and possibly relocates them elsewhere. Whether or not that is a desirable trade-off for the lack of a clear happy ending is a question that doesn't have a universal answer.

[AlanC9]

vallore wrote...
The endings are not balanced by the extra costs of Destroy because they add nothing to the nature of the question posed by the endings:

Does the player believes in the catalyst argument or not?

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

No appeal? How about stopping the war? I don't think I've ever seen a Control player pick that option because he thinks the Catalyst is right. The reason is that it ends the war with minimal casualties.

Though I agree that if you don't buy the Catalyst's argument there's no really compelling reason to pick Synthesis over Control, and some good reasons not to. Or rather, I haven't heard any such argument that I found compelling.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2013 - 07:03 .

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

Believing that acts have no inherent morality isn't nihilism.

What? Yes it is. Have you read Neitchie? That's the sole aspect of nihilism. The idea of inherent moral institutes are lies. That's it. What examples or sources are you going off of? Like, which books did you read that nihilism is.... I don't know.... stoners?

Did you not read the sentence that came after the one you quoted? Or did you not understand it? Here's the full paragraph, bolded for your convenience:

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.

You seem to be attempting to equate nihilism with moral relativisim, non-cognitivism, and all other meta-ethical theories that don't rely on inherent moral truths. These are not all the same thing.

But now that we've waded through some nonsense, you did finally come up with something interesting

I'm saying the endings are nihilistic in the sense there's an established moral truth in the fiction, throughout the game. Paragon vs. Renegade is a sole aspect of navagating through the game. You can do what's moralistic [paragon] or do something that's consequentialist [renegade]. In the end, you're forced to accept there is no moralist choice and if you try to do the moralist choice [refusal] thencivilization gets wiped out. If there was a way to hold truth in morality and could to overcome the enemy but there would be a larger price, that's consequentialism. To say if you choose to be moralistic results in wiping out civilization is nihilism. In order to understand your stanse, i'd really need to know what article or book you read that defines nihilism.

This is interesting, but incoherent. Consequentialism is a moral stance too. And yes, Refuse is the Paragon choice, and the others are various flavors of Renegade. You want to choose moralism over consequentialism? Well, there's your chance. Don't say that consequences shouldn't matter and then complain about consequences.

Edit: unless you mean that the "established moral truth" of Mass Effect is that Paragon and Renegade are equally moral and valid choices, in absolutely every possible case. If so... yes, the ending did deconstruct the ME moral system. But that just means that the ME morality system itself is nonsense.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2013 - 07:06 .

[PainCakesx]

Xenite wrote...

The real fun will come when they tell everyone that synth is cannon and that's what the next game will contain. They simply have no way to continue the universe with three separate worlds, they would have to make 3 different games.

We all know which one is Hudson's favorite, so it has to be ours as well.

If they did that, I would be very curious to see just how much (not if, but how much) their sales would tank for ME4.

Such a nonsensical ending. 

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

No appeal? How about stopping the war? I don't think I've ever seen a Control player pick that option because he thinks the Catalyst is right. The reason is that it ends the war with minimal casualties.

Though I agree that if you don't buy the Catalyst's argument there's no really compelling reason to pick Synthesis over Control, and some good reasons not to. Or rather, I haven't heard any such argument that I found compelling.

And if turning off the game and walking away has an even greater appeal than the ones actually presented?  What if every move you can make is a chocie that is repugnant on a visceral level? 

This unit does have a soul

The galaxy needs to build its own future free of the Reapers

EDI is alive, and is not alone.

It's like Joshua in War Games:  "A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play"

[PainCakesx]

AlanC9 wrote...

vallore wrote...
The endings are not balanced by the extra costs of Destroy because they add nothing to the nature of the question posed by the endings:

Does the player believes in the catalyst argument or not?

Destroyers ultimately don’t believe the catalyst arguments. If they did, Destroy shouldn’t be an option because of the supposed certainty of synthetics extinguishing all organic life. But if Destroyers don’t believe in the catalyst, then Control and Synthesis should have no appeal for them.

No appeal? How about stopping the war? I don't think I've ever seen a Control player pick that option because he thinks the Catalyst is right. The reason is that it ends the war with minimal casualties.

Though I agree that if you don't buy the Catalyst's argument there's no really compelling reason to pick Synthesis over Control, and some good reasons not to. Or rather, I haven't heard any such argument that I found compelling.

So after spending the last 2 games fighting TIM and his ideology of controlling the Reapers, it's preferrable for us at the last minute to ignore that and do exactly what we were fighting against?

That doesn't make any sense. 

The fact that they had to throw in a mass genocide of all synthetic life to try and "balance" the Destroy ending goes to show that they weren't sure of Synthesis and Control to begin with. They knew that Destroy would be by far the preferred choice because it's the only one that is faithful to the narrative that was setup throughout the trilogy. 

Modifié par PainCakesx, 29 janvier 2013 - 07:18 .

[DiebytheSword]

There are people who believe that a happy ending existing makes all other choices inferior. I disagree with those people, but there you have it.

Grimdark cannot exist with "care bear".

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

And if turning off the game and walking away has an even greater appeal than the ones actually presented?  What if every move you can make is a chocie that is repugnant on a visceral level? 

This unit does have a soul

The galaxy needs to build its own future free of the Reapers

EDI is alive, and is not alone.

It's like Joshua in War Games:  "A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play"

That's bad luck for you, yep.

You should find a way to live with Control.

[AlanC9]

PainCakesx wrote...
So after spending the last 2 games fighting TIM and his ideology of controlling the Reapers, it's preferrable for us at the last minute to ignore that and do exactly what we were fighting against?

My Control Sheps weren't doing that. In ME2 they didn't have any substantive disagreements with TIM about Reaper tech, and in ME3 they wondered if maybe he was right about Control . Still fighting TIM himself , but that's not the same thing as fighting his plan.

And if they were... so what? Sometimes you're just wrong about something.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

And if turning off the game and walking away has an even greater appeal than the ones actually presented?  What if every move you can make is a chocie that is repugnant on a visceral level? 

This unit does have a soul

The galaxy needs to build its own future free of the Reapers

EDI is alive, and is not alone.

It's like Joshua in War Games:  "A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play"

That's bad luck for you, yep.

You should find a way to live with Control.

Can't, Shepard disintigrates, remember?

And the Reapers go on to become Big Brother.

[CosmicGnosis]

PainCakesx wrote...

So after spending the last 2 games fighting TIM and his ideology of controlling the Reapers, it's preferrable for us at the last minute to ignore that and do exactly what we were fighting against?

That doesn't make any sense.

Paradigm Shift.

http://social.biowar.../index/15148476

[Mouton_Alpha]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

PainCakesx wrote...

So after spending the last 2 games fighting TIM and his ideology of controlling the Reapers, it's preferrable for us at the last minute to ignore that and do exactly what we were fighting against?

That doesn't make any sense.

Paradigm Shift.

http://social.biowar.../index/15148476

Such a simple thing and yet so many choose to ignore it. Sigh.

[Dr_Extrem]

the paradigm shift is also known as the "outer limits ending", in this context.

the hero ends up to be the villian, who betrays, kills ect. its friends, idiology.


partadigm shifts are a nice way to tell a story - but not any longer, if the player him/herself ends up on the receiving end. this pisses people off. nobody signs up to be the bad guy - at least not in a classic heroes-story.

in addition, this theme is worn out and lost its originality. the krogan are no longer bad, the asari are now calculating masterminds, the geth and quarien change places, the reapers are now the victims ... the list is long.

[vallore]

CronoDragoon wrote...

But because of the circumstances surrounding the endings, Control and perhaps Synthesis can have appeal outside of the question of the Catalyst's argument.

There are going to be people who would choose, Destroy, Control, and Synthesis no matter what. The current structure of the endings takes some of the people who could be swayed by the particulars of the endings and possibly relocates them elsewhere. Whether or not that is a desirable trade-off for the lack of a clear happy ending is a question that doesn't have a universal answer.

However, I would argue that any balance existent in the game endings was constructed around the need of balancing the central dilemma. If, for a given player, the dilemma fails, or takes a secondary role, then the end result is, again, unbalanced, making the extra costs associated with destroy pointless as a balance mechanism.

Without the central dilemma of the endings we have:

Control and Synthesis allowing everyone but Shepard to live; while Destroy causes EDI, possibly the Geth and likely Shepard to die, (minus a few seconds of ambiguity).

AlanC9 wrote...

No appeal? How about stopping the war? I don't think I've ever seen a Control player pick that option because he thinks the Catalyst is right. The reason is that it ends the war with minimal casualties.

Though I agree that if you don't buy the Catalyst's argument there's no really compelling reason to pick Synthesis over Control, and some good reasons not to. Or rather, I haven't heard any such argument that I found compelling.

I should have been clear about this. Belief in the catalyst is not limited to believing in his theory concerning the organics extinction, but also/or that the means Shepard can employ to solve the dilemma, (as presented by the catalyst), are indeed valid.

A player that chooses Destroy can afford to completely distrust the catalyst, (so long as he doesn’t role play, as that forces him to accept that shooting a tube will destroy the Reapers without proof). Once he makes his choice, that’s it; he knows the Reapers are gone for good.

A player that chooses Control is in a different position:

The consequence of his choice cannot be fully shown in game as it extends into eternity.

The Catalyst is the one that says Shepard can control the Reapers, without implying any limitations to this, temporal or otherwise. Had the Catalyst voiced his crucial phrase differently, say, if he had said the following:

“You can try to control the Reapers, but eternity is a long time to maintain control…”

I suspect many players would be less willing to choose that ending, even if the epilogue was exactly the same.

Note: Edited for clarity

Modifié par vallore, 29 janvier 2013 - 09:52 .