587 réponses à ce sujet

[Sc2mashimaro]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Sc2mashimaro wrote...
I totally agree with the OP. Not reading into any intentions of the writers, from Shep's perspective, why would you ever believe what a representative or the brain of the obviously sociopathic villains tells you about how you should resolve the problems of the galaxy. I have a hard time doing anything but destroy or reject.

Sociopathic villains? Bah. For the term to have any meaning the species in question must be social in the first place. The Reapers arent. The Catalyst isn't. They are simply not concerned with such things. It is not wrong, not good, not evil, it is just an attribute of the Catalyst. It's objectives are obviously not necessarily compatible with the wellbeing of organic civilizations, but its mental workings does not make it a villain. To count as a villain, there needs to be an implicit acknowledgement that the person in question can reasonably be expected to conform to certain standards. The Catalyst is not of that kind. It's just completely and utterly non-human.

For that reason, the argument that the Catalyst cannot be trusted is meaningless, because it operates on our standards of what is "villainous". Those standards do not apply

Reaching back a bit here, I know. I just wanted to say that I disagree strongly with this first statement. Reapers are conclusively shown to be sentient beings that can communicate and have clear intentions. The star-child/catalyst TELLS you that he speaks for the Reapers (as they were created a long time ago, blah, blah, blah) and claims he controls the Reapers. Thus, it can be concluded that the Reapers actions and vocalizations are his actions and vocalizations. Through ME1, 2, and up until the end of 3, Reapers are shown to use any means at their disposal (violence, mind control, manipulation, deception) to achieve their goal of harvesting/killing all advanced life in the galaxy. They do not divulge their motives and the star-child/catalyst, after all of that destruction, killing, deception, and manipulation claims that they do all this "for the good of the galaxy". It should be noted that no villain ever believes themselves to be evil. Even the ****s thought they were rightous at the time. The Catalyst cannot be trusted because the Catalyst is the Reapers and - if it was a Reaper speaking - I would not trust them.

Back to the endings:

If we did trust the Reaper-child, that he was being honest about his motivations, why would we find control or synthesis desirable?

Control is, as someone said, a dictatorial fantasy. It is the "I will never be corrupted by power and I will use this might for good" mentality. Some people have a lot of faith in government "as long as the right people are in charge". Well, Shepard is as right as it gets - so, they would find this appealing, I suppose. I don't trust that much power in anyone's hands and I don't think the power of violence behind the Reapers can solve the galaxy's problems. So I cannot rightly make myself dictator of the galaxy and feel okay about it.

Synthesis is what the Reapers have been aiming for the entire time. The star-child basically says as much and we have witnessed it through all three games. The Reaper's synthesis is violent, frightening and creates abominations that we spend most of 3 games fighting. According to the cut-scene, this synthesis is much cleaner and less violent, but before SEEING the end, why would we believe that this would be the case? Without the benefit of magically knowing it will be okay on the other side of that choice, agreeing to what the Reapers wanted in the first place doesn't seem like "stopping" the Reapers. It is more like "assisting" the Reapers (who then have no purpose, because their goal is accomplished).

Destroy is what the goal of Shepard and co. has been for three games. Yes, there are negative consequences for the Geth and EDI and maybe others. Yes, there are no "good" choices and the rhetoric of not having any "good" choices is something that we should definitely be talking about. But destroy is the only option that lines up with Shepard's values during the course of the game (unless you believe Shepard is a benevolent dictator in training through the game - then Control fits, I guess).

Reject fits too. But doesn't stop the Reapers. Your actions allow someone else to succeed, and we hope with better options than you had - but Shepard doesn't have to compromise any of his values (if you value the Geth and EDI too much to outright sacrifice them to win the war, they will die, but not by YOUR hand, if that is important to you).

[Hadeedak]

I'm not sure how power corrupts a machine. Whatever the Shep 2.0 upgrades did to the Catalyst, it's not Shepard. Shepard is dead. Calling control a power fantasy is a lot like calling destroy the technophobe's wet dream. Sure, if you want to see it that way, you can. But it's hardly the only perspective.

The best thing about these endings is that there IS no one right answer that's clearly superior. And I'm not sure why people need there to be one. That's a major charm. Each one is 'right' from a certain perspective. People get so entrenched over these endings that it's hard to consider other views. My backup emergency Shepard went with destroy. My backup backup Shep jumped into the beam. My Shep-prime grabbed the switch, died, and made the Catalyst into something else. And my current Shep is going to make a big heroic speech and then sit there staring around him until we cut to Liara.

And control fit my Shepard's morals and goals to a T. She's always been confident, but riding for a heroic sacrifice. She's certainly the sort who'd die to try to save everyone and everything she can. She always tried to preserve diversity and differing perspectives as much as possible.. And in the end, she saved the galaxy by ending the Reaper threat, in a fashion I felt was consistent with the character and personality I'd been envisioning across all 3 games. Never really got benevolent dictator. Whenever possible, I had her following orders. But hey. If that's how your controlShep would go about it, that's fine, too.

[AlanC9]

clennon8 wrote...

Switching gears slightly...

In another thread, jtav wrote that the Destroy ending invoked a Romantic vibe along the lines of "and now we shall return to a humbler and more virtuous state." Does anybody else see this?

I thought that was the point of the jungle planet scene, not Destroy in particular.

@ Hadeedak: nicely said.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 février 2013 - 10:53 .

[o Ventus]

Hadeedak wrote...

I'm not sure how power corrupts a machine. Whatever the Shep 2.0 upgrades did to the Catalyst, it's not Shepard. Shepard is dead. Calling control a power fantasy is a lot like calling destroy a technophobe's wet drem.

But it is a vey valid interpretation, especially in the renegade version. 

Power wouldn't corrupt the new Catalyst as much as it would give it a deadly fallback. You said it yourself, Shepard is dead. The new Catalyst might have Shepard's moral faculties, but what if your Shepard was a massive d*ckhead? Even if your Shepard was a white knight, the new Catalyst is still just an AI.

In fact, I think the new Catalyst taking a specific person's moral faculties would be a terrible idea in general. Especially with the Reapers acting as what is essentially a glorified police force (read: not a Gestapo). What would happen if a warlord were to rise to power? Would Shepardlyst just sit back? Threaten them with violence? What would happen if some normal, everyday civilian disagrees with the Shepardlyst?

The idea of giving one person (in this case, an all knowing AI) such a vast amount of power is terrifying. You might think of yourself (or your Shepard, in this case) as a valid candidate, but I guarantee no one else will see it that way.

[ruggly]

clennon8 wrote...

Switching gears slightly...

In another thread, jtav wrote that the Destroy ending invoked a Romantic vibe along the lines of "and now we shall return to a humbler and more virtuous state." Does anybody else see this?

Yes and no. In my mind destroy now allows us to progress in various ways, even if it means reverse engineering reaper tech again to our advantage.  But now we can advance outside of the tech that the reapers left lying around as well, make our own advances. Had to go digging for it, but I posted this in Ieldra's destroy topic

To which I disagree for the most part.  I have a problem with the reapers acting as an armada of deadly babysitters over the galaxy, but I have no problem with us possibly reverse engineering their tech after
they're gone, or fixing the relays.  Hell, we did it before with the Thanix Cannons.  And I can even go beyond that to say that my Shepards (since two that have gone through have survived) will become an advocate for synthetic rights, or even advocating synthesis on our own terms.  Since now Shepard knows this is possible, would it not be possible to look back at the schematics for the Crucible's ability to do so, and somehow
tweak it so it does become optional for people to choose?  That is probably wandering far into headcanon territory, though.

Probably not quite what you were asking about, but there's my two cents.

Modifié par ruggly, 16 février 2013 - 11:19 .

[Hadeedak]

That's your choice to see things that way. My opinion isn't good. Or bad. It's just different. I'm inclined to see the Shepalyst as more of a machine, with hardwired goals that include preservation of diversity and self-determination, much like my Shepard had throughout the game. I see the Reapers as becoming more and more abstracted from the existence of the galaxy as time goes on.

It depends on how involved you think the Catalyst really is. It certainly wasn't very active across most of the games (that we saw). Anything post-ending really comes down to how you want to see it. Me, I see the Catalyst as an observer with a big stick if someone starts wiping out species in her galaxy. At least for Esperanza. Sooner or later, down the road, I'll do a full on renegade control.

But if you cannot imagine a positive control or it frightens you that much, that's your prerogative. I just happen to disagree. I think there's a lot of room for speculation in all the endings, both positive and negative.

[o Ventus]

@Hadeedak

Fair enough. Renegade Control basically amounts to "I'm going to enforce peace, one way or the other."

Implications... Unpleasant.

Modifié par o Ventus, 16 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

Hadeedak wrote...

The best thing about these endings is that there IS no one right answer that's clearly superior. And I'm not sure why people need there to be one. That's a major charm. Each one is 'right' from a certain perspective.

Oh, absolutely. I enjoy the discussion though. I definitely have a perspective, but I want people to tell me why I'm wrong and make an argument for their perspective. (Turns out they were right about the speculations after the dust settled on the ending...how about that?)

She's certainly the sort who'd die to try to save everyone and everything she can. She always tried to preserve diversity and differing perspectives as much as possible.

That's an interesting perspective to me, because I thought process has always been that either Shepard would use the power to rule the galaxy OR he would attempt to serve the galaxy, but the enormous power he weilds would be the ultimate authority in the universe - so whomever he served would rule the galaxy through him. Thus, the benevolent dictator thing. But I kind of get your "I will sacrifice my life as a person and take on the burden of responsibility for this power in order to preserve everything and keep everybody safe" thing. He (or she!) is Clark Kent and he has to take on the burden of learning how to use (or not use) that power wisely if he wants to save everyone. (That is, if that's what you're saying).

Still haven't been convinced of a good reason for synthesis. But who knows!

Modifié par Sc2mashimaro, 16 février 2013 - 11:35 .

[Hadeedak]

I do enjoy talking about the endings, the images, the potential.... And a little friendly debate. If I didn't, I wouldn't pop into these threads. I'm not completely nuts. Hah, I do love me some superheroes. They're pretty much my guilty pleasure. And that's probably shaped my perceptions a bit. Yeah, there might be some Dr. Manhattan in my perceptions of controlShep. And not JUST for the whole blue thing.

Now, how can I get a cape on a Reaper? Put the Citadel in spandex....

[Sc2mashimaro]

Hadeedak wrote...
 Put the Citadel in spandex....

We will find a way.

[ruggly]

Hadeedak wrote...

I do enjoy talking about the endings, the images, the potential.... And a little friendly debate. If I didn't, I wouldn't pop into these threads. I'm not completely nuts. Hah, I do love me some superheroes. They're pretty much my guilty pleasure. And that's probably shaped my perceptions a bit. Yeah, there might be some Dr. Manhattan in my perceptions of controlShep. And not JUST for the whole blue thing.

Now, how can I get a cape on a Reaper? Put the Citadel in spandex....

There was one picture that had a reaper with an N7 hoodie, been trying to find it for you.  Otherwise, some of these might entertain you makani.deviantart.com/art/mass-effectz-dump-309296921

Modifié par ruggly, 17 février 2013 - 12:29 .

[Hadeedak]

This pleases me. Thank you!

[ruggly]

You're welcome!

edit: found it, now I'll stop being off topic

eonixa.deviantart.com/art/Blue-decision-313543072

Modifié par ruggly, 17 février 2013 - 08:31 .

[Auld Wulf]

@Hadeedak

If anything, you've convinced me of the possible potential good of Control. Synthesis is still my option because I think galactic empathy is something we need to survive, otherwise our primary goal is going to continue being "kill everyone we don't like."

As Mordin said: The problem wasn't the krogans, they weren't the reason for the genophage. But rather, if not for the interference of the salarians, then the humans and turians would have caused an extinction event, wiping the krogans out. That actually made me raise an eyebrow at just how much empathy the salarians actually had at that point, they weren't just intellectual, they were emotional too. And they gave a damn about things. My respect for Mordin increased a thousand-fold that day. But I digress.

I still support Synthesis because I think that galactic empathy is a good way to solve a lot of problems. We have so many problems because we can't empathise with the victim; thievery, murder, rape, you name it. It's all borne of the inability to understand how the victim feels. But what if as part of the consensus a victim could force an attacker to feel and experience what they're feeling and experiencing? Problem solved.

So I still like Synthesis as my option. But still, I respect you, I respect your clarity, and I respect your vision. I respect you a lot more than many people here on BSN. If indeed the ethics of one could be carried over to Control in a non-corrupting way, then I'm truly all for it. I hadn't quite considered your scenario.

I guess the only ending I still have an axe to grind against is Destroy, but that's subjective, because I don't want to be a monster, and I don't think anyone else needs to die.

[Hadeedak]

I like synthesis. It feels very... optimistic, to me. Sure, the science is a bit "Wait, what", but mass effect fields and eezo laid the groundwork for "wait, what" to not be a new thought for me. You have some interesting thoughts about synthesis -- namely, that it'd work as a subconscious galactic empathy. That's an intriguing thought, and a little easier to envision.

Like I said earlier in the thread: love, hate, disbelieve or largely indifferent, the endings sure got us talking and got a lot of us thinking. And they do play into some common science fiction directions and cliches.

Also, that Reaperhoodie is adorable.

[GethPrimeMKII]

To me synthesis is way too good to be true. The catalyst leaves way too many questions regarding synthesis unanswered for me to ever consider it to be the best course of action.

If synthesis is the proper path to choose, there are things I would need to know for certain and not have to guess at. I want to know things like why is it only Shepard can do this and what makes him so special. I need details if I'm going to radically change the genetic make up of an entire galaxy.

Even putting the logistics of synthesis aside, there are still the moral issues. Even if synthesis works out exactly as shown in the EC, its still not right for one man to make this decision on behalf of an entire galaxy.

[Cyberfrog81]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I guess the only ending I still have an axe to grind against is Destroy, but that's subjective, because I don't want to be a monster, and I don't think anyone else needs to die.

But you are a monster. Every Shepard is a monster.

Sacrificing synthetics in order to destroy the "gods". Ending one form of life (temporarily) to save another. *Sigh* thanks, BioWare.

Enslaving the enemy, letting some more or less sane AI version of Shepard command a giant armada of powerful killers and mindbenders... How guaranteed harmless, and not morally questionable at all. Thanks, BioWare.

Infecting the entire galaxy with your "essence"... How not creepy at all; how plausible; how guaranteed harmless; how not morally troublesome at all. Your enemy, who thinks that tormenting and killing and harvesting every 50K years is a sensible way to govern the galaxy, finds the solution "ideal". How reassuring. And... thanks, BioWare.

Don't want to admit that your favourite ending has downsides? Like Aria says, we all have our delusions. Face it: Destroy is not meant to be a no-brainer. That's why they added one hell of a cost for paragons to struggle with. But Synthesis is not meant to be a no-brainer either. If it is for you... then you, sir, are a blight.

[AlanC9]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

But you are a monster. Every Shepard is a monster.

Which means that "monster" isn't a useful term here. It might tell you something about the situation Shepard's in, but nothing at all about Shepard.

[Hadeedak]

Just like saying that Shepard makes big choices that effect the whole galaxy, and that that's immoral. Shepard's been doing that since the time s/he ran into rachni. The endings are on a whole different scale, but electing to do ANYTHING, including sit on your hands, is choosing the fate and to some extent, direction of the whole galaxy. If you play the game (any of the trilogy) you have to make choices that there is no way in hell one person should be making.

And picking Synthesis doesn't make you a technozombie. Picking destroy doesn't make you a violent Luddite. And picking control doesn't make you a wannabe dictator. Saying it does is oversimplifying at best, and a bit insulting at worst.

[Han Shot First]

Glancing over this thread, it seems that argument that Destroy is genocide has one again reared its ugly head. This is a misuse of the term 'genocide,' as Destroy does not fit the legal definition.

Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defines genocide as "acts commited with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."

I bolded the important bit in regards to Shepard's decision to destroy. Assuming for a moment that the Geth are sapient beings with the same rights as organics, in order for Destroy to fit the legal definition of genocide, it would have had to have been Shepard's intent to annilate the Geth. That however, is not the case.

The Geth are merely destroyed as an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers. Their destruction is a horrific example of collateral damage, but it is not an example of genocide. The Crucible was neither built or activated for the purpose of annihilating the Geth.

Furthermore I would argue that the need to destroy the Reapers, who were in the processes of annihilating galactic civilization, had already killed billions in the current cycle, and had caused countless mass extinctions in previous cycles, constitutes military necessity.

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.

military necessity

Modifié par Han Shot First, 17 février 2013 - 06:55 .

[ruggly]

Hadeedak wrote...

Just like saying that Shepard makes big choices that effect the whole galaxy, and that that's immoral. Shepard's been doing that since the time s/he ran into rachni. The endings are on a whole different scale, but electing to do ANYTHING, including sit on your hands, is choosing the fate and to some extent, direction of the whole galaxy. If you play the game (any of the trilogy) you have to make choices that there is no way in hell one person should be making.

And picking Synthesis doesn't make you a technozombie. Picking destroy doesn't make you a violent Luddite. And picking control doesn't make you a wannabe dictator. Saying it does is oversimplifying at best, and a bit insulting at worst.

I would argue that for the bold that at least with the Rachni and other decisions (such as Tuchuanka and the genopage, Rannoch, etc), Shepard at least had two squadmates to give their input, and other NPCs on the Normandy.  As you said, the endings are on a whole different scale.  EDI I think said it best, "moral decisions should not be made in a vacuum.  If I do not ask others for their input, I could miss crucial context."  Come the endings, where are you? A giant vacuum with a glowing info dump that you may or may not take its word for (but that's a whole different beast).

[Hadeedak]

@ruggly
Come on, you know it'd be awesome to take Garrus and Tali to the Catalyst to help. But that's not how the narrative works, for better or worse. You do need to make a choice, including to do nothing. It's the nature of the beast.

[ruggly]

Oh I know. And I agree, I needed to make a choice, so I did.

[Ieldra]

Hadeedak wrote...
The best thing about these endings is that there IS no one right answer that's clearly superior. And I'm not sure why people need there to be one. That's a major charm. Each one is 'right' from a certain perspective.

Do you know how often I've posted this? I feel like a prayer wheel saying "All endings are good in their own way" over and over again. There's one I don't like, but even where I've posted that, I've gone out of my way to say that no one is objectively better than another.