1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
 But but SYNTHESIS!?!

The only things I would support for Synthesis and Control would be for them to be Reaper traps.

I reject the organic vs. synthetic tech singularity. I think the Reapers should have just been the ultimate evil or whatnot. 

I'm not opposed to synthesis occuring in the future, after it has been attained scientifically and is consensually handed out to people, and actually makes sense instead of the space magic as shown.

I do oppose it when the Reapers advocate it. 

I hate how the Reapers are supposed to be sympathetic. 

. I think very very few people would care if they had remained unknowable evils in the galaxy, not understood not explained, just there.

But "Art" prevailed

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd] 
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

That sounds pretty much what Destroy is.  And like I said, the argument could be made for its necessity to stop the Reapers.  One can also say Shepard is forced into the action, Jigsaw-style.  But that doesn't make it any less the systematic extermination of all synthetic life. The means and goal are irrelevant as far as the definition goes.   Once the deed is done, there is no more synthetic life anywhere in the galaxy.  

Depends on the definition of "deliberate" you're using. Does this include all forseeable consequences of your actions, or just the ones you intended?

I prefer your reading for this purpose, since I'm not sure what's gained by separating out intended consequences from known unintended consequences when we're judging an action. But not all ethical -- or legal -- systems work this way.

[fiendishchicken]

Steelcan wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
 But but SYNTHESIS!?!

The only things I would support for Synthesis and Control would be for them to be Reaper traps.

I reject the organic vs. synthetic tech singularity. I think the Reapers should have just been the ultimate evil or whatnot. 

I'm not opposed to synthesis occuring in the future, after it has been attained scientifically and is consensually handed out to people, and actually makes sense instead of the space magic as shown.

I do oppose it when the Reapers advocate it. 

I hate how the Reapers are supposed to be sympathetic. 

. I think very very few people would care if they had remained unknowable evils in the galaxy, not understood not explained, just there.

But "Art" prevailed

I know Ieldra would have thrown a **** fit.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

Destroy is classic principle of double effect. The choice is made to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the geth is a side effect and Shep would be delighted if it didn't work. That makes a difference.

It mitigates things. It keeps Shepard from being (necessailly) a mustache-twirling maniac.  But it doesn't change the fact that Shepard knowingly killed every synthetic life form in the galaxy to get to the reapers.

[Steelcan]

[quote]fiendishchicken wrote...

[/quote]

I know Ieldra would have thrown a **** fit.

[/quote]. It's why I said most.

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...

jtav wrote...

Destroy is classic principle of double effect. The choice is made to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the geth is a side effect and Shep would be delighted if it didn't work. That makes a difference.

It mitigates things. It keeps Shepard from being (necessailly) a mustache-twirling maniac.  But it doesn't change the fact that Shepard knowingly killed every synthetic life form in the galaxy to get to the reapers.

. Every Reaper augmented synthetic:bandit:

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd] 
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

That sounds pretty much what Destroy is.  And like I said, the argument could be made for its necessity to stop the Reapers.  One can also say Shepard is forced into the action, Jigsaw-style.  But that doesn't make it any less the systematic extermination of all synthetic life. The means and goal are irrelevant as far as the definition goes.   Once the deed is done, there is no more synthetic life anywhere in the galaxy.  

Depends on the definition of "deliberate" you're using. Does this include all forseeable consequences of your actions, or just the ones you intended?

I prefer your reading for this purpose, since I'm not sure what's gained by separating out intended consequences from known unintended consequences when we're judging an action. But not all ethical -- or legal -- systems work this way.

"The Crucible will not discriminate.  All synthetic life will be targeted" sounds about as deliberate as it comes.  It can't be denied that Shepard was warned ahead fo time of the consequences.

[Falaxe]

ME3 cannot simply have a happy ending. Why? Because idio.. players would be whining about it all over the forums.

[fiendishchicken]

iakus wrote...

jtav wrote...

Destroy is classic principle of double effect. The choice is made to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the geth is a side effect and Shep would be delighted if it didn't work. That makes a difference.

It mitigates things. It keeps Shepard from being (necessailly) a mustache-twirling maniac.  But it doesn't change the fact that Shepard knowingly killed every synthetic life form in the galaxy to get to the reapers.

Nothing is more important in my book than destroying the Reapers. I know what the price was, and I know what the outcome is. 

It was worth it. My Shepard lives knowing he ended the threat forever.

The Catalyst, its solution, and its problem can all go to hell.

[cyrslash1974]

fiendishchicken wrote...

iakus wrote...

jtav wrote...

Destroy is classic principle of double effect. The choice is made to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the geth is a side effect and Shep would be delighted if it didn't work. That makes a difference.

It mitigates things. It keeps Shepard from being (necessailly) a mustache-twirling maniac.  But it doesn't change the fact that Shepard knowingly killed every synthetic life form in the galaxy to get to the reapers.

Nothing is more important in my book than destroying the Reapers. I know what the price was, and I know what the outcome is. 

It was worth it. My Shepard lives knowing he ended the threat forever.

The Catalyst, its solution, and its problem can all go to hell.

The Catalyst, its solution, its stupid and incorrect logic and its problem can all go to hell.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd]
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

That sounds pretty much what Destroy is.  And like I said, the argument could be made for its necessity to stop the Reapers.  One can also say Shepard is forced into the action, Jigsaw-style.  But that doesn't make it any less the systematic extermination of all synthetic life. The means and goal are irrelevant as far as the definition goes.   Once the deed is done, there is no more synthetic life anywhere in the galaxy.

That definition has the luxury of being able to disregard fictional scenarios, such as ME3's ending, that may call into question the vagueness of its presentation. Genocides in real life don't happen because the leaders were forced into it, or because they had to save the world. In each case the primary purpose of the act of genocide was the genocide itself. There is no weapon or virus that was used for one purpose but had the unfortunate consequence of killing a race..

What makes something genocide is the destruction of a race.  Full stop.  There is no "genocidal manslaughter"

Oh but your very own definition says otherwise. The fact that "deliberate" was included tells you that intent itself is important. In response to Alan9, it matters very much to me what the primary or secondary effects or intents of an act are. Imagine a scenario where someone is hanging off a cliff by a rope that you hold. In one scenario, you let go of a rope because you think the world is better off without that person. In another scenario, you let go of the rope because there is another rope from which ten people dangle, and the rope is about to break. Those two situations are morally indistinguishable to you? Because that is how I see the question of genocide vs. what happens in Destroy.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 février 2013 - 09:04 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd] 
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Depends on the definition of "deliberate" you're using. Does this include all forseeable consequences of your actions, or just the ones you intended?

I prefer your reading for this purpose, since I'm not sure what's gained by separating out intended consequences from known unintended consequences when we're judging an action. But not all ethical -- or legal -- systems work this way.

"The Crucible will not discriminate.  All synthetic life will be targeted" sounds about as deliberate as it comes.  It can't be denied that Shepard was warned ahead fo time of the consequences.

Huh? I thought the italicized sentence was clear, but I guess it wasn't. I was questioning whether we "deliberately" do the unintentioned consequences of our actions, or if  "deliberately" doesn't include those unintentioned consequences.

[Stalker]

A happy ending just doesn't fit in the current story.

As bad executed as it is, the game has a depressing notion and it's about a last fight that is currently lost on all fronts. Even the big heroic Commander Shepard is getting crazy over it. The worst thing you can do with that story now is to end it with a happy rainbow party.

Honestly? That the ending has a bittersweet notion is the only thing I like about it. It's just the glaring plot-holes, dumb space-magic and lack of choice-outcome that completely ruins it for me.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 04 février 2013 - 09:10 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...
In response to Alan9, it matters very much to me what the primary or secondary effects or intents of an act are. Imagine a scenario where someone is hanging off a cliff by a rope that you hold. In one scenario, you let go of a rope because you think the world is better off without that person. In another scenario, you let go of the rope because there is another rope from which ten people dangle, and the rope is about to break. Those two situations are morally indistinguishable to you? Because that is how I see the question of genocide vs. what happens in Destroy.

I agree it matters for how we judge the man. But if we're just talking about the act of letting go of the rope, I don't think it matters. Though in practice I suppose this isn't a very important distinction.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd] 
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Depends on the definition of "deliberate" you're using. Does this include all forseeable consequences of your actions, or just the ones you intended?

I prefer your reading for this purpose, since I'm not sure what's gained by separating out intended consequences from known unintended consequences when we're judging an action. But not all ethical -- or legal -- systems work this way.

"The Crucible will not discriminate.  All synthetic life will be targeted" sounds about as deliberate as it comes.  It can't be denied that Shepard was warned ahead fo time of the consequences.

Huh? I thought the italicized sentence was clear, but I guess it wasn't. I was questioning whether we "deliberately" do the unintentioned consequences of our actions, or if  "deliberately" doesn't include those unintentioned consequences.

Sorry, my intention with that quote was that whether eradicating the synthetics was an intended consequence is moot.  Shepard knew that it would happen if he chose that route.  IT wasn't a possibility or a probablility, "If I do this, then that will happen, whether I like it or not"

[Iakus]

Mr Massakka wrote...

A happy ending just doesn't fit in the current story.

As bad executed as it is, the game has a depressing notion and it's about a last fight that is currently lost on all fronts. Even the big heroic Commander Shepard is getting crazy over it. The worst thing you can do with that story now is to end it with a happy rainbow party.

Honestly? That the ending has a bittersweet notion is the only thing I like about it. It's just the glaring plot-holes, dumb space-magic and lack of choice-outcome that completely ruins it for me.

Why does no one see the difference between the endings we get and a "Sunshine and rainbows" golden ending?  There's a vast, untapped source of satisfactory endings  between the two.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree it matters for how we judge the man. But if we're just talking about the act of letting go of the rope, I don't think it matters. Though in practice I suppose this isn't a very important distinction.

Yeah I know what you're saying: the act itself is the same. You're letting go of the rope. For me, the word genocide and all its connotations imply intent within the word, which is to say they imply morality. Specifically, they imply a certain lack of morality or a corrupted, twisted morality given what we know about the leaders in history that have undertaken such acts. Therefore the word is not only a characterization of an act but a judgment of the actor.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 février 2013 - 09:23 .

[sharkboy421]

Mr Massakka wrote...

A happy ending just doesn't fit in the current story.

As bad executed as it is, the game has a depressing notion and it's about a last fight that is currently lost on all fronts. Even the big heroic Commander Shepard is getting crazy over it. The worst thing you can do with that story now is to end it with a happy rainbow party.

Honestly? That the ending has a bittersweet notion is the only thing I like about it. It's just the glaring plot-holes, dumb space-magic and lack of choice-outcome that completely ruins it for me.

For me personally, I never got the "all hope is lost" vibe.  ME3 was certainly more somber and "darker" than the other 2 but it still maintained that feeling of hope that existed in 1 and 2.  Right up until the end I still felt that if Shepard fought hard enough she would win.

While I agree a bittersweet ending is most appropriate, I don't believe the EC does that really well either.  Synthesis is especially is presented as extremely happy.  But for me thats besides the point, as all the endings are based a premise that is completely inappropriate for Mass Effect.  Hence any level of happiness in them is irrelevant. 

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

A happy ending just doesn't fit in the current story.

As bad executed as it is, the game has a depressing notion and it's about a last fight that is currently lost on all fronts. Even the big heroic Commander Shepard is getting crazy over it. The worst thing you can do with that story now is to end it with a happy rainbow party.

Honestly? That the ending has a bittersweet notion is the only thing I like about it. It's just the glaring plot-holes, dumb space-magic and lack of choice-outcome that completely ruins it for me.

Why does no one see the difference between the endings we get and a "Sunshine and rainbows" golden ending?  There's a vast, untapped source of satisfactory endings  between the two.

Because for some reason they feel threatened by the suggestion of something less dire than what we were given.  It's far easier to demean someone than to try and understand and even agree with what they mean.  If a happy ending is considered bad then I assume these same people consider that a real horribly sad ending is just super terrific.  It's why the best books end with everyone living "unhappily ever after".  Give me super sappy cheesy silly happy every time if my only other choice is dementedly gratuitously sad.

[3DandBeyond]

sharkboy421 wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

A happy ending just doesn't fit in the current story.

As bad executed as it is, the game has a depressing notion and it's about a last fight that is currently lost on all fronts. Even the big heroic Commander Shepard is getting crazy over it. The worst thing you can do with that story now is to end it with a happy rainbow party.

Honestly? That the ending has a bittersweet notion is the only thing I like about it. It's just the glaring plot-holes, dumb space-magic and lack of choice-outcome that completely ruins it for me.

For me personally, I never got the "all hope is lost" vibe.  ME3 was certainly more somber and "darker" than the other 2 but it still maintained that feeling of hope that existed in 1 and 2.  Right up until the end I still felt that if Shepard fought hard enough she would win.

While I agree a bittersweet ending is most appropriate, I don't believe the EC does that really well either.  Synthesis is especially is presented as extremely happy.  But for me thats besides the point, as all the endings are based a premise that is completely inappropriate for Mass Effect.  Hence any level of happiness in them is irrelevant. 

Exactly.  I envisioned everything from dire and dark to a somewhat happier possibility.  In between there's bittersweet.  But even a happier ending would be bittersweet.  The galaxy is a mess.  Millions, if not billions have died.  Death permeates.  Who saw the citadel bodies and then can say that some happier ending is super happy?  Shepard has been run through a meat grinder, so what does happy mean?  Basically, it is that out of all of this, one day s/he might truly smile again or might be able to relax and stop saving the galaxy.  After such events, the galaxy needs Shepard more than ever.  If you think it was difficult to get people to work together to fight the reapers, it will be a thousand times worse when faced with trying to rebuild.

A "happy" ending is not bunnies and rainbows, it's facing the aftermath and rebuilding, trying to go on after hell has visited your door.

And as I see it what we now have trivializes all that happened.  Each of the endings sugar coats things and tries to make it look as if it was easy to move past this.

But you said it very well.  Given that the endings don't fit with ME and the story, a happy ending isn't really the most relevant thing.  Most that want one though have decided it's the last and only thing left that they can still ask for.  It's their bottom line as to what might make this at least feel a little better.

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

iakus wrote...

Shepard killing all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy to save organic life from synthetics

The Catalyst killing all advanced organic life to "save" future organic life from synthetics

It's not that much of a reduction.

In what sense? You're certainly selective about how you word it: I could easily reframe it in far less similar terms.

Shepard kills all synthetics everywhere in the galaxy as of consequence of destroying a clear and present synthetic menace that is conducting an immediate genocide. The result of this action is the resolution of the problem, and allows for future life, organic and synthetic, to exist free from the fear of Reaper genocide.

The Catalyst is killing all sufficiently advanced organic and synthetic life eveywhere in the galaxy to ward off against a hypothetical future genocide. The result of this action does NOT resolve the underlying problem, and is intended to lead into a continued patter of genocide.



There are a few pretty important logical and contextual differences between those two situations... enough so that I'll claim you're making a false equivalence.

The Catalyst considers the presence of advanced organic life a clear and present danger.  Thus its "cleansing fire"  It sees the synthetic genocide as inevitable, not a hypothetical.  Kill advanced organic life now, allow future organic life to live free of synthetic threats.  At least until their time comes. 

Again, the reasoning for the two actions is not that disparate, at least from the points of view of the characters taking the action.  Genocide life forms for the future safety of others

Shepard's action is potentially worse, though.  The Catalyst sees life as a series of patterns  It measures things in cold equations.  Shepard, being human, has the potential to see life as individuals.  These are people Shepard is condemming to death. 

Yeah, I'm going to call a false equivalence here. I don't know if you can tell the difference or not in the contexts and beliefs behind the two, but you sure aren't acknowledging them.

[argan1985]

Who cares about a happy ending? They should have made one that makes sense to start with.

[AB Souldier]

argan1985 wrote...

Who cares about a happy ending? They should have made one that makes sense to start with.

Although i agree, the current ending doesn't make sense (i actually want the catalyst boy scene out), but i think a happy ending is important because it is the last game of the trilogy.

[PainCakesx]

I've said this before, but I think it's worth reiterating.

There can't be a true happy ending simply by virtue of the circumstances surrounding the game - billions dead, homeworlds in ruins, allies / friends dead (Thane, Anderson, Mordin, Legion, etc.) etc. Shepard living and reuniting wouldn't be a "golden" ending simply because the death and destruction that takes place throughout the game is huge. After 30+ hours of watching allies / friends die, people in general dying, entire planets in flames and ruins, and constantly hearing about the impending apocalypse, is it so wrong to want an uplifting ending? Something to balance the overall bleak and dark tone of the rest of the game?

I really like the dark and brooding mood of ME3, but there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel or the entire game is just a complete downer. It's hard to want play through it again.

Modifié par PainCakesx, 06 février 2013 - 06:31 .

[EnvyTB075]

I would argue that a happy ending DOES fit with the game. The game is actually full of happy stuff, with all the bad stuff happening off screen or so infrequent that the feeling of hopelessness is never achieved.

Good things in game?
Garrus/Shep post Menae
Genophage Cure
Geth/Quarian partnership
Freedom of the Rachni
Destruction of Cerberus
...and a host of uplifting dialogue in between missions.

Bad stuff that happened in my game that actually affected me because i was there to witness it?
Tarquin.
Mordin.

Thats it. Everything else happens off screen. Videogames are visual media, you can't rely on "bad things happened on planet Y today" to convey true emotional responses.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 06 février 2013 - 06:39 .