445 réponses à ce sujet

[Kadi]

robertthebard wrote...

Never mind, apparently I'm misinterpreting something here.

Was going to say, preaching to the choir lol

[FOX216BC]

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh I'm tired of people saying everyone dies in refuse.

No.

Only ending where "everyone one" even comes close to dying is low EMS destroy. Refuse simply kills Shep's cycle who are not everyone. (The Yahg for one are left untouched).

Yeah, the game was more about the yaghs than about humans, turians, Quarians, Asari, krogan...
What the hell, what a useless soldier(commander).
Simply kills shep's cycle?
Because Shep's cycle was boring, right?
Then why do i play this trilogy over and over again?
Just to give up in the end?
<_<

Modifié par FOX216BC, 27 mars 2013 - 05:12 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

robertthebard wrote...

I could buy that if I'd never spoken to a Reaper.  But I have Sovereign, and Harbinger, and the unnamed Reaper on Rannoch that state differently.  They may not "enjoy" doing it, but they willingly do so.

You cannot possibly know that.

If TIM brought back Shepard with the control-chip, making him blindly follow all pro-Cerberus orders, an outside observer would probably believe he's following TIM's agenda so very willingly. However, there is no free-will to begin with, it's - by definition - impossible for them to be following their higher-control willfully.

That argument because even more problematic if/when one argues that the harvested were all unwillingly forced into it!

[TuringPoint]

It could be mercy.  We don't actually know.  I don't think that argument can really be 'distilled' from all the others though, it needs context to make sense.

If a Reaper's existence is anything like what we saw happening between the people of the cerberus research base near that brown giant, it would indeed be a confusing existence.  To us anyway.  Maybe it would be alright for a reaper. I suspect it records the suffering and confusion of its component people until the end, along with all the other things.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Reapers are intended for warfare and terror, and to continue that cycle.  If it wouldn't be a mercy to destroy that race in order to stop that cycle, what would?

However, with the other endings it appears that the reapers have the possibility of volition beyond terror and war - it just requires reprogramming.  So I don't think 'mercy-killing' is a sufficient argument to support the destruction ending over all others.

Up until Shepard's choice though, the destroy ending could be considered a mercy.  If the Reapers didn't want an end to the cycle their component races surely would have.  

The virtual aliens made a choice - and they live in a virtual world that is sufficient for them to live lives.  Their computing power isn't used for destruction but for maintaining a virtual existence.  Reapers are just reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Alocormin wrote...

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Reapers are intended for warfare and terror, and to continue that cycle.  If it wouldn't be a mercy to destroy that race in order to stop that cycle, what would?

I was just having this conversation on the last page. Sadly, it went nowhere, since the other side took offense to it.

My problem with this argument is, simply put, it's judging the book by its cover.

Every geth's hardware is designed for combat. Does that mean they're all just warmongering killbots?

[Fixers0]

Killing the Reapers kills the Reapers.

[Aaleel]

I don't see how it's mercy but I've also never seen anything in any of the three games that's convinced me that the reapers are just being completely controlled by the Catalyst and not just independent soldiers carrying out orders.

[robertthebard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I could buy that if I'd never spoken to a Reaper.  But I have Sovereign, and Harbinger, and the unnamed Reaper on Rannoch that state differently.  They may not "enjoy" doing it, but they willingly do so.

You cannot possibly know that.

If TIM brought back Shepard with the control-chip, making him blindly follow all pro-Cerberus orders, an outside observer would probably believe he's following TIM's agenda so very willingly. However, there is no free-will to begin with, it's - by definition - impossible for them to be following their higher-control willfully.

That argument because even more problematic if/when one argues that the harvested were all unwillingly forced into it!

How do you know they don't?  This is the point we have to resolve before you can carry any water in your bucket.  You claim they are slaves, but nothing in any of the dialog with any of the Reapers we have dialog with, no matter which path we take, indicates that they are slaves.  So you are taking a base assumption, and trying to build a case off of that.  In order to make a convincing argument, you're going to have to provide some facts.  Saying "I think they were slaves, so they must have been" is not a valid argument when we have Reapers that tell us, point blank, that we exist only because they allow it.  This is where I draw my conclusions from.  Everyone can replay Virmire and get the same dialog from Sovereign.  I didn't make it up to support a claim, I just played Virmire the other night, and saw/heard Sovereign say it.  So until you can present something that categorically shows that they are slaves, they are willing participants in a galactic wide atrocity that occurs every 50,000 years or so.

[Kadi]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

I think it's important to keep in mind that the Reapers are intended for warfare and terror, and to continue that cycle.  If it wouldn't be a mercy to destroy that race in order to stop that cycle, what would?

I was just having this conversation on the last page. Sadly, it went nowhere, since the other side took offense to it.

My problem with this argument is, simply put, it's judging the book by its cover.

Every geth's hardware is designed for combat. Does that mean they're all just warmongering killbots?

No but the geth arent exactly the right beings to compare by, after all it was the quarians who used them for mual labour, and when the geth beame sentient, they decided to kill them. thats like everytie a civilisation becomes smart the reapers reap them.

One point that alot of Synthesis people forget, which i try to be reminded of is that, If one chooses Destroy, they do not encounter the Reapers aiding the galaxy in repairs and all that, in their Cannon the reapers were the very death machines that they were.

[Aaleel]

Your decision should be made on what your Shepard knows at the time of the encounter with the Catalyst. I've never understood the "this ending shows this, this ending shows that", "do you change your choice after seeing the endings". It's just blatant meta gaming.

And honestly I still haven't seen anything to make me change my mind. But every Shepard I play is new, and I always base the decision off the facts at hand at the time of the choice.

[robertthebard]

Aaleel wrote...

Your decision should be made on what your Shepard knows at the time of the encounter with the Catalyst. I've never understood the "this ending shows this, this ending shows that", "do you change your choice after seeing the endings". It's just blatant meta gaming.

And honestly I still haven't seen anything to make me change my mind. But every Shepard I play is new, and I always base the decision off the facts at hand at the time of the choice.

I've done that every time I played past London, and what I base it on is watching Reapers destroying the fleet I spent the entirety of the last game building, so I shoot the tube.

[Megaton_Hope]

RiouHotaru wrote...

As far we know, the minds are intact, the bodies are not.  The Catalyst even states as such, and for the sake of the argument, since we're being meta, Synthesis proves this is the case.  I would only assume that the same process that replaces the Catalyst with Shepard in Control (somehow turning Shepard's memories and experiences into an AI, is the same process used on people who are made into a part of a Reaper.

If you want to destroy the Reapers out of some sentiment, it's revenge, not mercy.

A lot of loaded words being thrown around. So far as I'm concerned, the reason is self-preservation, because as I sit there making the decision, the Reapers are murdering my entire species, a task which they have been embarked upon for as long as that species has existed.

[Auld Wulf]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Every geth's hardware is designed for combat. Does that mean they're all just warmongering killbots?

I wish people understood this more.

The fact of the matter is that Mass Effect is very good at propaganda and presenting one point of view, even to the point where it seems to brainwash the player into accepting something if they're weak willed. Then, when presented with the notion that all that was said might not be true, and that they may have to re-evaluate their position, we get... very interesting results. The programmed-in racism of a fictional species is clung to for dear life, and we see all manner of bizzarre justifications for it, rather than understanding that the acceptance of said racism of a fictional race was incorrect in the first place.

My respect and admiration goes out to the writers at BioWare for being able to pull this off. Before, I thought only Obsidian could do something like this. Resulting in great debates over the many factions in New Vegas and so on, I loved those. And whether it was even worth trying to save Caesar's Legion. And yet BioWare did it here with aplomb, they specifically showed one side of a viewpoint with laser accuracy, and they continued that focus to a point where--unless the player questioned it--it became ingrained within their psyche.

From this thread, it's obvious that the programmed racism actually took hold. It worked. We see people describing Reapers as monsters and abominations when they can't possibly be described as such, further, we have arguments that because something has the means to do something, it means that they have the will to. I have legs, but I don't go around kicking every man I see in the nads. Capability does imply motivation. It's important to understand that capability and motivation are actually two very different things. What one can do is not relevant to what one may do, according to their will.

We saw the Reapers only as slaves to the Leviathan Doctrine throughout the entirety of the Mass Effect series, and sometimes the... wording used to describe the Reapers, due to their unknowable nature, made me raise an eyebrow. I felt like this is how BioWare wanted me to feel, despite having my own questions. It was clever and I empathised with everyone on my squad, but for me there was always that nagging question in the back of my mind. "There's more to this, isn't there? It's not that simple." Yet for some people it became that simple, due to how good Mass Effect is at programming the player with a viewpoint.

Reapers BAD, Reapers need DESTROYED.

Except, uh. No. There actually is more to it than that. It doesn't matter where in the story we discover that, but the reveal of information that the Reapers are indeed slaves changes everything. And then depending on the mindset of the person we have varying reactions, and these reactions are borne of how much a person can accept that what they might have believed was true. The Mass Effect series taught the player to be racist against the Reapers because all the player ever saw was the Reapers killing people. Then we learn that the Reapers are actually slaves, and would likely not do that if they had the right to choose. (Synthesis proves they wouldn't return to their old ways.)

At that point, it's down to the player's own will. Does the player cast aside their programming that the Reapers are evil and bad, do they eschew the propaganda of Javik and the belief that they're abominations beyond saving? Or do they accept that the  Reapers can be saved, and that the Reapers could even be a benefit to galactic society? It's going to differ from person to person. I imagine that if racism and stark, binary viewpoints are common within someone's mindset, then remaining with that viewpoint is going to be easier. However, if a person has an open mind and they're both willing and capable of examining the evidence of the changed situation, and they're not already predisposed to xenophobic viewpoints, then they're going to have other opinions.

This is why the Reapers are interesting. BioWare has actually managed to create a sense of racism against them, against a fictional peoples that exist only within the story. And that's hard to break through with rationality and logic, because racism speaks more to basic emotions and instinct. This is why it's clever writing, and this is why I don't think the two groups will ever actually agree. What makes this even more fascinating is because the player is programmed to view the geth sympathetically, they might actually save the geth and then still choose to destroy the Reapers at the end, simply because they believe the first viewpoint they're presented with is the only one, and it can be no different.

I suppose a lot of this has to do with how games don't normally challenge gamers in this way. Often, games have very... Saturday morning cartoon plotlines. You are the good guy, you're going to kill the evil empire, rescue the people, save the prince, and have a great sex life along with a happily ever after. That story has been told since the 8-bit era of gaming. The fact of the matter is is that up until Mass Effect 3, gamers didn't actually realise that the game had any more texture to it than Space Invaders. Space Invaders features a faceless evil trying to destroy earth, with a lone ship trying to provide the sole defence against them. Up until ME3, Space Invaders and Mass Effect had a lot in common.

This is the "standard" viewpoint. It's okay to be opposed to the bad guys. That can't be seen as racism because in a videogame, the bad guys are the bad guys, and you are the good guys. The bad guys exist only to be defeated and/or destroyed. The good guys are always in the right, and shining examples of good and justice (no matter how much food they steal from various homes and houses across the land, I'm looking at you Avatar). This is actually more than a little depressing, since only Saturday morning cartoons share this intellectual and emotional simplicity. Yes, thankfully we are seeing some development in this area in the games industry, but we're not seeing any development within the gamer psyche.

The Reapers are bad because they're the bad guys. Mass Effect programmed people to be racist against them. And as gamers, used to Saturday morning cartoon plots, they can't exactly wrap their minds around how destroying the bad guys becomes an unethical move, even a morally evil one. How Destroy is the same kind of choice that many of the worst villains of earth's history would have chosen. How Destroy is technically the 'bad guy' choice. This is because it exists in direct contradiction with videogame standards. It challlenges the player to think differently than what they are accustomed to. Some can do that. Some can't.

For some, Mass Effect will always be Space Invaders, and that makes me sad. The Reapers will always be a faceless evil to be racist against (even though they're an innocent slave race), and the purpose of the game is solely to Destroy the Reapers. But I'm thankful there are at least some people out there who understand why this is bad. It's slightly worrying to me that the Space Invaders mindset is the norm, and that people actually desire Space Invaders over a more intellectually and emotionally mature plot.

Edit: I also liked how BioWare pulled the familiarity card. That the further you move away from what's familiar to human, to some people you're then creating something "inhuman" due to xenophobia (the fear of the unknown). It's an instinctive response to be terrified by that which you don't understand, it's an instinctive response to embrace the f amiliar. It's instinctive because we've been biologically programmed to be wary of things which can kill us, whiich is a natural response. But where intellect comes in is actually error checking that response to see if the unknown actually wishes us harm, or is simply a friend we haven't encountered yet.

Opposedly, the familiar card can also be used to sidestep character building and make people quickly relate to a character. Marvel pulled this card with Spider-Man and at the time it worked amazingly well. It would probably still work well with new characters, because not enough people stop to question this. "Hey, he's just like me!" That's enough for most people to like a character, even if the character turns out to be nothing like them. It'sa narrative trick to help manpulate the more base, instinctive emotions of the reader. It's been used quite elegantly in literature over the years, and it was used to brilliant effect in Mass Effect as well.

The Reapers represent the unknown, and they are made to sound very, very strange by human standards. This feeds into the fear of the unknown. That coupled with the programming to view Reapers as evil within the rest of the series actually results in a very effective form of conditioning. Again, it's only if one ever stops to question these things does one avoid falling prey to such. Questions are important, we need to ask them of everything, including ourselves. Intellectuality is founded within seeking answers to mysteries and problems. Sometimes those mysteries are within our own behavioural patterns, and how we respond to things.

Ultimately, Mass Effect has turned out to be a very clever social experiment and an exemplary bit of writing prowess. I salute BioWare for that.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 27 mars 2013 - 07:42 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Arrogance or delusion?

I'm hoping it's the latter but Wolfie's probably the former.

[Auld Wulf]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Arrogance or delusion?

I'm hoping it's the latter but Wolfie's probably the former.

That's an extremely elegant and not at all knee-jerkish response to my argument. >_>

[o Ventus]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Arrogance or delusion?

I'm hoping it's the latter but Wolfie's probably the former.

Arrogance is an excellent incubator for delusion.

I would say it's a combination of both.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

o Ventus wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Arrogance or delusion?

I'm hoping it's the latter but Wolfie's probably the former.

Arrogance is an excellent incubator for delusion.

I would say it's a combination of both.

Fair enough.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Arrogance or delusion?

I'm hoping it's the latter but Wolfie's probably the former.

That's an extremely elegant and not at all knee-jerkish response to my argument. >_>

Well us Reaper hating monsters aren't known for our mental aptitude are we?


You think the Reapers are innocent victims, good for you. Don't go around accusing anyone who wants them dead of sociopathy, or racism, or any of the other labels you've been slinging around. If you really want to hold the moral high ground you'll stop being such an arrogant ******.

[Megaton_Hope]

I don't see why the question of free will is material, as no option to free the Reapers from outside control and achieve peaceful cooperation exists.

[Kadi]

@Auld Wolf, seriously? so because I share a fair Point, on what you believe your going to ignore it like it does not exist, and then cry about people not seeing the same view points as you?

Get out of it, playing the "your all racist against reapers" card. they started it, IF the reapers had the willpower and strength to fight back in the first place, and not decide to let themselves be controlled then we wouldnt be discussing this, because only then when they literally have not done anything wrong should they not be held accountable for their actions.

This thread has showed me,that people are just plain ignorant. Shepard shows She/He has the will to resist indoctrination of the reapers, and resist the crap provided by the catalyst, and Shepard like the rest of the cycle are mere lesser beings according to the Reapers. so dont give me that "they are slaves" no they should should be held accountable, and keep in mind that it is only Synthesis where they openly decide to help. in control, they are forced too by the new Shepard/Reaper god being. in Destroy and Refusal, they are just evil boogiemen from darkspace, who want nothing more than to dominate the galaxy. regardless of the catalyst and its propaganda.

The Synthesis choice is to unite us while keeping us as we are. without anymore sacrifice, it doesnt mean there wont be wars, or conflicts because there are always conflicts. after the machines of death have helped fix what they caused regardless of "IF" they should be made to face justice, perhaps exile in darkspace i dunno, what constitutes as a good punishment for galactic genocide. being free is being responsible for yourself and your actions, apart of the order of things.

and that is my opinion on the matter, and frankly after your decision to just ignore my counter argument because it does not fit into your reaper loving world then so be it. ill not invest any more time with you trying to discuss that.

[Alienboy411676]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Alienboy411676 wrote...

In either case, I still believe picking synthesis is wrong no matter what, as I explained in my previous post.  Even with the time for him to explain it to you, it is wrong to impose it on the entire galaxy

Moot point, considering every option is imposed in nature....

Destroy: directly imposed death on synthetic life, indirect effects on organics (losing valuable allies).
Control: directly imposed control over Reapers, likely indirect effects on galaxy at large.
Sync: directly imposed change unto organic life, indirect effects on synthetics (gained understanding through us).

Any of these "impositions" can and are easily justified by the fact that it saves all life from imminent death/harvest.

I don't *like* it. In a perfect world, we'd have choices like the last link in my sig, but this isn't a perfect world.

A choice still has to be made.

There's a big difference between the imposition of Synthesis, and the impositions of the other options.  

Destroy: only imposes on synthetic life, a minority in the galaxy (and before you say/think that I don't believe minorities matter, I do.  This is why I sometimes pick Control in my playthroughs)
Control: only imposes on the Reapers, IMHO control is the most logical choice for a Paragon Shepard.  If a Paragon Shepard takes the Catalyst's words at face value, Control is the option that imposes the least on the fewest lifeforms, and it does not involve killing/destroying anybody else except Shepard. 
Synthesis: imposes on EVERY LIVING THING in the galaxy - from plant life on random planets to non-space-faring civilizations. 

You may say that some may not mind having the Synthesis "implants" put in them, but I think that those people would easily be a minority.  How many people in the ME universe (asari, turian, batarian, krogan, drell, hanar, quarian etc. etc....) have technology implanted in them?  Since virtually none of them ever speak of it, I think it's safe to say it's a very small percentage.  Thus, if the people, human, alien, or whatever, wanted technology implanted in them, they would already.  So I think it's a fair statement that the vast majority of the galactic population would not want synthesis. 

I don't know what the choice in the last link of your sig is, but my personal ultimate choice that I wish I had...simply destroy the Catalyst itself.  Destroy the puppeteer...free the puppets, let the Reapers decide what they want to do now that they are free, and if they still wish to continue the harvest, then have it out with the Reapers.  

[Auintus]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Well us Reaper hating monsters aren't known for our mental aptitude are we?

You think the Reapers are innocent victims, good for you. Don't go around accusing anyone who wants them dead of sociopathy, or racism, or any of the other labels you've been slinging around. If you really want to hold the moral high ground you'll stop being such an arrogant ******.

I don't judge people on their choice, I judge them on their, typically poor, reasons for making that choice. Auld Wulf seems a little...shall we say passionate? I think that's a nice word for it. But he is right...to a point. Many people completely disregard the fact that when the cards are down, the Reapers are uninterested in our demise. Teh Wulf takes it further than necessary, but his overall point is accurate.
However, I have met destroyers who's reasons for that choice make perfect sense, give that we have different priorities. It is those who blatantly ignore information that aggrevate me.

[Auintus]

Alienboy411676 wrote...

There's a big difference between the imposition of Synthesis, and the impositions of the other options.  

Destroy: only imposes on synthetic life, a minority in the galaxy (and before you say/think that I don't believe minorities matter, I do.  This is why I sometimes pick Control in my playthroughs)
Control: only imposes on the Reapers, IMHO control is the most logical choice for a Paragon Shepard.  If a Paragon Shepard takes the Catalyst's words at face value, Control is the option that imposes the least on the fewest lifeforms, and it does not involve killing/destroying anybody else except Shepard. 
Synthesis: imposes on EVERY LIVING THING in the galaxy - from plant life on random planets to non-space-faring civilizations. 

I don't know what the choice in the last link of your sig is, but my personal ultimate choice that I wish I had...simply destroy the Catalyst itself.  Destroy the puppeteer...free the puppets, let the Reapers decide what they want to do now that they are free, and if they still wish to continue the harvest, then have it out with the Reapers.  

Except Destroy imposes death. I erradicates the chance of any of the geth or EDI ever being able to do anything, ever. Control does the same to the Reapers, thought with their position, it is forgivable. Synthesis may be imposed on the entire galaxy, but it is not a choice that limits them in any other way.

The last link is basically the same options, but eliminates all downsides. It goes against the "cost of war" theme the game has going, but some would like it.
"Having it out" with the Reapers would basically be Refuse, and we all see how well that goes.

[Alienboy411676]

Auintus wrote...

Alienboy411676 wrote...

There's a big difference between the imposition of Synthesis, and the impositions of the other options.  

Destroy: only imposes on synthetic life, a minority in the galaxy (and before you say/think that I don't believe minorities matter, I do.  This is why I sometimes pick Control in my playthroughs)
Control: only imposes on the Reapers, IMHO control is the most logical choice for a Paragon Shepard.  If a Paragon Shepard takes the Catalyst's words at face value, Control is the option that imposes the least on the fewest lifeforms, and it does not involve killing/destroying anybody else except Shepard. 
Synthesis: imposes on EVERY LIVING THING in the galaxy - from plant life on random planets to non-space-faring civilizations. 

I don't know what the choice in the last link of your sig is, but my personal ultimate choice that I wish I had...simply destroy the Catalyst itself.  Destroy the puppeteer...free the puppets, let the Reapers decide what they want to do now that they are free, and if they still wish to continue the harvest, then have it out with the Reapers.  

Except Destroy imposes death. I erradicates the chance of any of the geth or EDI ever being able to do anything, ever.

I believe I said that.   

I also said that it imposes death on fewest individuals, and that it is because it imposes death that I admittedly sometimes pick Control over Destroy.

Auintus wrote...

Synthesis may be imposed on the entire galaxy, but it is not a choice that limits them in any other way.

Synthesis violates the free will of every living thing in the galaxy.  And while it may not "limit" anyone as you say, I have explained why and how it would likely be destructive to non-space-faring civilizations - thus imposing DEATH.  

As I have explained in previous posts, a non-space-faring civilization (i.e. humanity as it is now, any race without the ability to travel to other planets, any race that has no idea aliens even exist) would be forced to cope with Synthesis.  They would have no knowledge of what happened to them.  They have no idea how or why it happened, or even what it was.  This would likely result in fear and chaos among their society, and would thus lead to the death of many individuals - thousands, if not millions, when you multiply it by the number of non-space-faring civilizations out there.  

Therefore, yes, synthesis also imposes death.

[Megaton_Hope]

No way really to know in what ways Synthesis has limited all life (and all non-living intelligence) in the galaxy. Actually, by causing all that exists to respond in a more fundamentally similar way to stimuli, Synthesis may doom all life.

Take, for example, the Potato Famine. The problem of a blight to which a particular breed of potato is especially vulnerable became a problem because that breed of potato was being extensively cultivated in monoculture in Ireland. That the potato crop had become blighted was a problem because it was a necessary component in the diet of the poor sharecropping farmer; if they were relying on more of a mixture of crops they could have coped better.

In essence, Synthesis is hard-coding fragility into the galaxy. Diversity in responses, whether genetic, trained, or due to individual quirks in temperament is a desirable trait. Rendering all intelligent life into a single hybrid actually weakens the galaxy rather than strengthening it.