582 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I can understand not liking the choices, my only problem is people thinking that bioware sees diversity as wrong and that they frown upon it. And that they use out of context examples the motivations of the villian of the game, to justify this assertion.

Also framing the whole argument as if only destroy and synthesis were the only present choices, when control and refuse exist. And claiming you can't disagree with these claims, when you very clearly can in the dialouge choices.

It´s the Unfortunate Implications trope, at full strenght. All endings have it.

No it does not. How does control in any way imply anti-diversity? Even destory does not even hint at it.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 février 2013 - 08:03 .

[Wayning_Star]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So what your saying is, because you don't like the ending choices, suddenly bioware is racist and anti-diversity, because the villain proclaims these facts.

More likely because you are forced to follow those choices, or in the future someone else will anyway.

And personally I don´t find the writing racist, just something incredibly stupid thinking itself incredibly smart.

I can understand not liking the choices, my only problem is people thinking that bioware sees diversity as wrong and that they frown upon it. And that they use out of context examples the motivations of the villian of the game, to justify this assertion.

Also framing the whole argument as if only destroy and synthesis were the only present choices, when control and refuse exist. And claiming you can't disagree with these claims, when you very clearly can in the dialouge choices.

well,the folks at bioware do like computers and they might just want us synthesised to overcome competition in the world markets...scary thought right there.

Gamers bewary!! they're all OUT TO GET YOU!!

[Wayning_Star]

Folks, we've all been trolled by an expert..

[Nerevar-as]

dreman9999 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I can understand not liking the choices, my only problem is people thinking that bioware sees diversity as wrong and that they frown upon it. And that they use out of context examples the motivations of the villian of the game, to justify this assertion.

Also framing the whole argument as if only destroy and synthesis were the only present choices, when control and refuse exist. And claiming you can't disagree with these claims, when you very clearly can in the dialouge choices.

It´s the Unfortunate Implications trope, at full strenght. All endings have it.

No it does not. How does control in any way imply anti-diversity? Even destory does not even hint at it.

Control implies the solution to be an overlord watching over everyone else. It´s just another kind of implication.

[dreman9999]

Nerevar-as wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I can understand not liking the choices, my only problem is people thinking that bioware sees diversity as wrong and that they frown upon it. And that they use out of context examples the motivations of the villian of the game, to justify this assertion.

Also framing the whole argument as if only destroy and synthesis were the only present choices, when control and refuse exist. And claiming you can't disagree with these claims, when you very clearly can in the dialouge choices.

It´s the Unfortunate Implications trope, at full strenght. All endings have it.

No it does not. How does control in any way imply anti-diversity? Even destory does not even hint at it.

Control implies the solution to be an overlord watching over everyone else. It´s just another kind of implication.

1.That does not mean no diversity.
2.That really is never implied.

[Raanz]

hmm this thread still going..... interesting

[FlyingSquirrel]

3DandBeyond wrote...
 If one person can say it would lead to something good, it is just as valid to say it would not.

OK, but I thought the question was whether the message of the game is anti-diversity. I would argue that the Catalyst is anti-diversity, and that it is *possible* to play Shepard as accepting its anti-diversity arguments, but that it is also possible play Shepard as rejecting them with any of the four ending choices. Shepard doesn't always explain his/her motivations for everything, and that's probably for the best, as it allows us (the players) to reconcile the fairly limited set of pre-scripted choices to a lot of different approaches and philosophies.

I'm pretty sure Bioware's writers don't really think it's morally acceptable to send a drug-addled civilian into the middle of a dangerous firefight for laughs, and yet Renegade Shepard can do that to Niftu Cal on Illium.

And the OP has it right-without further exploration of this need to make a choice there is no other conclusion then that the goal is to make organics and synthetics more alike so that understanding can be achieved and conflict avoided.  It's assuming that the kid (and thus Leviathan as his creators) were prophetic and knew that one day two different species would fight it all out and that synthetics would be the ones left standing. 

I agree that the writing could have been better, but I disagree that there is "no other conclusion." And if you want a reason spelled out as to why Shepard has to make a decision quickly, the space battles are still raging in the background throughout the dialogue with the Catalyst. And when Shepard asks the Catalyst if Synthesis will lead to peace, I, personally, was thinking just as much about all the horrible wars and abuses perpetrated by organics against each other as any organic/synthetic conflict.

(Which is not to say that I don't have problems with Synthesis - at the very least, I'd have to be convinced that it's quickly and painlessly reversible for those who don't want it before I could be comfortable with it.)

The other problem is that the kid sees Synthesis as the pinnacle of evolution-that means it would end evolution.  Without that, no people are no longer individuals, tech controls everything.

Well, I think he's wrong. He does have a rather long history of being wrong about things, after all. (g)

[Cainhurst Crow]

So what exactly do you think the functions of goverments are? If not a authority figure who holds some means of maintaining order in civilizations and enforcing a social contract of not murdering eachother over tiny discrepancies?

[CronoDragoon]

I think Destroy was meant to represent a rejection of the Catalyst. Unfortunately they added destroying all synthetics as a way to balance the endings without really thinking about the damage they were inflicting to Destroy's thematic importance, which I took to be autonomy at the risk of total failure.

In other words, while I believe the ending has some questionable aspects regarding diversity I don't believe they were really intentional.

[Nerevar-as]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So what exactly do you think the functions of goverments are? If not a authority figure who holds some means of maintaining order in civilizations and enforcing a social contract of not murdering eachother over tiny discrepancies?

Living and stealing from those below them, as they always have. But I think we´d better avoid political comparisons. They are dangerous for a thread´s survival.

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Yes, and the death of EDI does show one truly irreplaceable life. In order to be able to destroy her, you must decide that her life is less important than the life of anyone else.

Misleading statement. You don't have to decide that her life is less important than any one individual. You just have to decide that the collective majority of the galaxy takes precedence over one life.

I don't think the endings are racist. Treating synthetics like a special interest group isn't particularly a reasonable decision-making process at the end.

[Legbiter]

One of the better troll jobs I've seen on the forum.

Well done OP.

[Cuttlebone]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

For a while I thought I was the only one who saw how horrifically racist the ending premise is.

nope ... i saw it the first time.

The problem started at Rannoch. What, the Geth can only coexist with organics by stripping themselves of what made them unique in favor of becoming something more "familiar?" They aren't alive without the Reaper Pinocchio code? EDI isn't without Synthesis?

Stripping themselves of what made them unique? it seemed more like an upgrade to me, the machine equivalent of evolution I guess.

[Dr_Extrem]

Nitrocuban wrote...

Starbrat is kinda Uber-Racist.
It's up to the player to prove him wrong.

sadly, shepard cant. he/she rolls over and accepts one of the crimes of stems the fists into the hips and says "i dont want to play with you anymore"

shepard is not even trying to be the shepard - thats the issue. its the blind acceptance of an idiology, that was fought from day 1.

it is biowares fault that people can see such messages on the endings - they made it vague on purpose - now they have to deal with unpleasant questions. if they cant handle it, they should not have implemented stuff like this to begin with.

locking a thread like this, would only proove their short sighted decision.

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Nitrocuban wrote...

Starbrat is kinda Uber-Racist.
It's up to the player to prove him wrong.

sadly, shepard cant. he/she rolls over and accepts one of the crimes of stems the fists into the hips and says "i dont want to play with you anymore"

shepard is not even trying to be the shepard - thats the issue. its the blind acceptance of an idiology, that was fought from day 1.

it is biowares fault that people can see such messages on the endings - they made it vague on purpose - now they have to deal with unpleasant questions. if they cant handle it, they should not have implemented stuff like this to begin with.

locking a thread like this, would only proove their short sighted decision.

1. You can't even change his mind...He's a shackled ai.
2. The choice is just choose or everyonr dies.
3. That does not make it anti-diversity. Legion mission and arrival force the same question.

[Reorte]

Wayning_Star wrote...

The real question is will synthesis or any other apex type concept actually upend diversity, or freedom of choice.

It won't, the universe,nature and evolution is too big an issue to compartmentalize. Eventually different stuff will evolve, apparently and there'll be another ME game to play..

folks needs to 'get back to the land'.. The flat earth theory has been mostly debunked!!

No, the question is about whether something (whatever that is) has to be forced on people to make them get along. Your point just illustrates won't Synthesis doesn't even do what it claims to do, not that it's not an attempt at forcing cooperation because otherwise you won't get it.

[Dr_Extrem]

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

What do you mean without a fight? Do you mean the ability to shoot the catalyst mid description of synthesis? Becuase you can't mean disagreeing with him, as you do in the EC dialouge choices. Nor refusing his scenario all together, as was done in refuse. Or even saying that he is the problem and removing him from the equation, as both control and destroy do.

[Dr_Extrem]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

What do you mean without a fight? Do you mean the ability to shoot the catalyst mid description of synthesis? Becuase you can't mean disagreeing with him, as you do in the EC dialouge choices. Nor refusing his scenario all together, as was done in refuse. Or even saying that he is the problem and removing him from the equation, as both control and destroy do.

sure .. every fightr has to end with a bullet to the face.

"i dont know" .. shepards last words. yeah .. shepard tried really hard ...

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

What do you mean without a fight? Do you mean the ability to shoot the catalyst mid description of synthesis? Becuase you can't mean disagreeing with him, as you do in the EC dialouge choices. Nor refusing his scenario all together, as was done in refuse. Or even saying that he is the problem and removing him from the equation, as both control and destroy do.

sure .. every fightr has to end with a bullet to the face.

"i dont know" .. shepards last words. yeah .. shepard tried really hard ...

That has not been his last word since ec came out.

[steinvegard]

Legbiter wrote...

One of the better troll jobs I've seen on the forum.

Well done OP.

No, I just can`t be in front of my computer all the time. My concern is honest. 

The "diversity must lead to conflict even if it is peaceful now" is not something you should let something you have presented as a superintelligence, rogue or not, say if you dont think the idea has merit. It is established in the story that the reapers have a intelligence far beyond anyone elses, and this is the thing controlling them again. It probably is just bad storytelling, but Bioware should be more careful about who gets to represent what ideology. 

HAL is not comparable, because he is a very simple being compared to the star child(Though a infinitly better written character). How wrong he is is also appearant right away, he gets his comuppance by being shut off and nothing in the movie hints that his actions could have been justified in any way. Star child wins and brings new peace to the galaxy with one of its new solutions.. 

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I think Destroy was meant to represent a rejection of the Catalyst. Unfortunately they added destroying all synthetics as a way to balance the endings without really thinking about the damage they were inflicting to Destroy's thematic importance, which I took to be autonomy at the risk of total failure.

In other words, while I believe the ending has some questionable aspects regarding diversity I don't believe they were really intentional.

The refusal to correct this, however, was deliberate.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

What do you mean without a fight? Do you mean the ability to shoot the catalyst mid description of synthesis? Becuase you can't mean disagreeing with him, as you do in the EC dialouge choices. Nor refusing his scenario all together, as was done in refuse. Or even saying that he is the problem and removing him from the equation, as both control and destroy do.

sure .. every fightr has to end with a bullet to the face.

"i dont know" .. shepards last words. yeah .. shepard tried really hard ...

And "I wont make that decision"? What about that one?

"You're asking me to change everything...everyone. I can't make that decision. I wont"

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 21 février 2013 - 08:52 .

[dreman9999]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

Last time I check you can dissagree many times over. The problem is that you can't change to choices on hand.

You really want to spend your time argueing with a wall?

[Dr_Extrem]

dreman9999 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

its not about changing its mindset - its about accepting it without a fight.

What do you mean without a fight? Do you mean the ability to shoot the catalyst mid description of synthesis? Becuase you can't mean disagreeing with him, as you do in the EC dialouge choices. Nor refusing his scenario all together, as was done in refuse. Or even saying that he is the problem and removing him from the equation, as both control and destroy do.

sure .. every fightr has to end with a bullet to the face.

"i dont know" .. shepards last words. yeah .. shepard tried really hard ...

That has not been his last word since ec came out.

or was it "lets get over with it" ? .. both very heroic.