428 réponses à ce sujet

[skate4tacos96]

The reality is, that we can argue morals and justifications all we want. But, we are never going to find the perfect solution, as we are imperfect beings. Imperfect beings can't comprehend the prospect of perfection, because they will never experience it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

skate4tacos96 wrote...

The reality is, that we can argue morals and justifications all we want. But, we are never going to find the perfect solution, as we are imperfect beings. Imperfect beings can't comprehend the prospect of perfection, because they will never experience it.

Don't tell that to Ieldra. Or Seival. Or several of the Synthesis fans.

Still, minus Auld Wulf and Seival, they're better than the people who choose synthesis without really understanding or questioning anything. They accept that there's a problem because the game, right at that moment, told them that there was a problem. Those are the most annoying pro-enders. The ones who take whatever you give them without thinking about it.

[Phatose]

Well, I guess they're lucky it's a video game, not reality, and that doesn't actually apply.

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

skate4tacos96 wrote...
The reality is, that we can argue morals and justifications all we want. But, we are never going to find the perfect solution, as we are imperfect beings. Imperfect beings can't comprehend the prospect of perfection, because they will never experience it.

Don't tell that to Ieldra. Or Seival. Or several of the Synthesis fans.

You are misrepresenting me. I've always said this: there is no absolute measure of perfection, thus perfection without any qualifier what exactly is perfected and to which purpose cannot exist. When I speak about what Synthesis brings, I speak of improvement.

There is no "pinnacle of evolution" either. I have no idea why this simple truth escaped the ME writers. Perhaps it's a religious matter. Given the prevalence of eschatological imagery in the Synthesis exposition, it wouldn't surprise me. Or it was just written with a "players are morons" mindset.

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no "pinnacle of evolution" either. I have no idea why this simple truth escaped the ME writers. Perhaps it's a religious matter. Given the prevalence of eschatological imagery in the Synthesis exposition, it wouldn't surprise me. Or it was just written with a "players are morons" mindset.

Sadly, at this point I could see it going either way

[MassivelyEffective0730]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no "pinnacle of evolution" either. I have no idea why this simple truth escaped the ME writers. Perhaps it's a religious matter. Given the prevalence of eschatological imagery in the Synthesis exposition, it wouldn't surprise me. Or it was just written with a "players are morons" mindset.

Sadly, at this point I could see it going either way

I think it was a bit of both. 

[Eryri]

iakus wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

That you see a distinction here is deeply troubling to me. Can games not tell stories? Or, should they only tell uncomplicated, pathos-free ones?

Games can tell stories yes.  But this is a debate Chemilcord and I have had many times over many threads.  I believe that games are a different medium that, say novels and other passive forms of entertainment.  ANd therefore, tell their stories differently (for one thing, the audience is more invested in the protagonist).  Chemiclord seems to think otherwise.  I was merely reminding that this is one of those cases where simpy calling it a "story" doeesn't fully encompass what Mass Effect is.

Agreed. Even if Mass Effect 3's plot was a great one for a novel or film (and it isn't, it would be sub-par in any medium) it is not fit for purpose for the very specific requirements of a game's story. For one thing, a game implies the possibility of either the thrill of success or the pain of failure.

Even if he chooses to refuse, the next cycle manages to defeat the Reapers with Liara's information. The Reapers are living on borrowed time, no matter what Shepard does. One would have to use a default fail-shep, and squander war assets left and right, to have a chance of seeing the low EMS endings where Earth is destroyed, and even then, the Reapers die too (or are enslaved). Shepard simply has the profound good fortune of facing an enemy in the Catalyst, that is both incompetent, and unenthusiastic about his job. 

Not exactly a recipe for a sense of accomplishment.

Modifié par Eryri, 20 mai 2013 - 04:59 .

[aug1796]

What people don't realize is the control ending is just as ethical as destroy.....who says that Shepard has to use the reapers....he could just decide to pilot them into the sun...Problem solved no reapers and everything can go back to a semi-normal state...

[Iakus]

aug1796 wrote...

What people don't realize is the control ending is just as ethical as destroy.....who says that Shepard has to use the reapers....he could just decide to pilot them into the sun...Problem solved no reapers and everything can go back to a semi-normal state...

1)  that's not Shepard.  That's an AI based upon Shep's memories, but still a distinct, independant entity.

2) It clearly does not fly them into the sun, but keeps them aroud to "guide" the other races.

Big Shepard is watching...

[N7 Dynames]

Auld Wulf wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Phatose wrote...

[...] according to Christianty, everybody is worth forgiving.

Most Religions share that theme.  And most people don't live up to it.

[...] of course most people don't live up to it, because we view them as guidelines which is what they actually are

Some people can most certainly live up to it, but they are exceptional people.

Others see things like ethics as 'bendable guidelines' which only apply when it's convenient and comfortable for them, from a selfish perspective. The selfless person is an ultimately rare creature; the example of a selfless person, for example, is someone who would be willing to put their lives on the line in order to not rat out their friends, and would endure anything to remain loyal. However, 1984 is a representation of how weak of character and will most people are.

I say with complete conviction that here you may speak for yourself, but you do not speak for me. I have a strong sense of ethics and I can separate my personal feelings from my ability to analyse something according to ethics, this is a depressingly rare talent.

Were the Reapers responsible for what they did? No.

Were the Reapers responsible for what they became? No.

Did the Reapers have any say in this whatsoever? No.

The Reapers are victims. I've specifically pointed out in the past that they are victims of mind and body rape. My sense of ethics tells me that if someone is raped, then mind-controlled to kill, this person is a victim, those killed are also victims. It is the one pulling the strings who isn't. I recently ran a poll, a poll titled 'is it justice you seek?' and in that poll we see that many people want to kill the Reapers because they find them repugnant.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are rape victims? No.

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are victims of the Leviathans, as much as anyone else? No.

You're just looking for stereotypical bad guys to slaughter. When the Reapers turn out to be victims as well, instead of actually stopping to think whether you should still hit the 'kill them all' button, you just hit it anyway. You slaughter them anyway, because you were promised something to kill, and by damn you're going to kill something for your own satisfaction. You've no appreciation of the higher narrative on offer. You just want to kill things.

And this is what separates us. An exceptional person appreciates a narrative in which these variables are presented. Others just want a dumb plot where, essentailly, Gud Guys Kill Dem Bad Guys. And that's all there is to it. Don't talk to me about the Reapers and forgiveness, because that never entered your head, or the heads of those like you. My poll proves it, it proves it absolutely, and that's why I often refer to BSN as an anti-intellectual ghetto. It's the same reason the ME3 ending was so reviled -- because it tried to make people think. You know, as opposed to pulling the trigger to kill things.

I understand what the Reapers are -- victims. I'm exceptional enough of a person to understand and appreciate that. And I'm an exceptional person in my ability to desire their ethical treament. It's easy to forgive them because it was never their fault.

It's a simple matter according to ethics:

The Reapers are victims of mind and body rape. If you kill a rape victim without even giving them a chance, then you're a monster. You're the monster -- not the Reapers. Plain and simple.

Theres a word for people like you. 

Indoctrinated.

[Eretikas]

KingZayd wrote...
They didn't want a good option. If there was a good option, then it'd be easy to make a decision you were comfortable with.

Easy options must be available to very high EMS - because hard work must be rewarding.

CosmicGnosis wrote...
Many people here at BSN believe that Synthesis is an abominable choice, and are frustrated that BioWare presented it as the best choice.

Bioware could fix it easily without changing all endings too much:

High EMS Synthesis: Current ending.

Very High EMS Synthesis: Allow to for synthesis to be an individual choice. Basically, very high EMS would force catalyst/reapers to surrender, so Shepard won't feel like catalyst's puppet executing orders of his arch enemy. Catalyst gives away information on how to do synthesis procedure. EDI and Joker could apply first . Shepard stays alive and don't have to change who he is.

High EMS Control: Current ending.

Very High EMS Controls: Reapers surrender, are freed from catalyst control and do repair of the Galaxy. Shepard stays alive and don't have to change who he is.

High EMS Destroy: Current ending.

Very High EMS Destroy: Reapers power themselves off in a non violent manner. Shepard and synthetics stays alive.

I guess, this would make everybody happy.

Modifié par Eretikas, 20 mai 2013 - 07:16 .

[KaiserShep]

^That would make sense. For those who did every single side mission, charmed or intimidated his/her way to get the best possible results and gathered as many assets as were available, it would be nice if there was a larger variety of possible outcomes based on how much work you put into your playthrough.

[PsyrenY]

iakus wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

iakus wrote...

I did not say stories.  I said games.

That you see a distinction here is deeply troubling to me. Can games not tell stories? Or, should they only tell uncomplicated, pathos-free ones?

Games can tell stories yes.  But this is a debate Chemilcord and I have had many times over many threads.  I believe that games are a different medium that, say novels and other passive forms of entertainment.  ANd therefore, tell their stories differently (for one thing, the audience is more invested in the protagonist).  Chemiclord seems to think otherwise.  I was merely reminding that this is one of those cases where simpy calling it a "story" doeesn't fully encompass what Mass Effect is.

I can agree with that, but you haven't addressed the "pathos-free, uncomplicated" parts either. Just because a game is a different type of story doesn't mean it should avoid conventions that other stories use.

Eryri wrote...

For one thing, a game implies the possibility of either the thrill of success or the pain of failure.

I did succeed in Mass Effect, overall. That there was a price to that success is more than fine with me. Black-and-white "win everything/lose everything" outcomes are not interesting.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 20 mai 2013 - 07:37 .

[jtav]

It would make me happy. All endings would be good endings so I could make my choice based on how I wanted the galaxy to look.

[PsyrenY]

jtav wrote...

It would make me happy. All endings would be good endings so I could make my choice based on how I wanted the galaxy to look.

This is how I see the endings now. Some sacrifice to each, yes, but good overall.

Even Refuse, which I despise as a choice, went out of its way to show you that the Reaper threat ended there too. (Eventually.)

(Note: I don't despise the way they executed Refuse, that part of it was beautiful.)

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 20 mai 2013 - 07:50 .

[Redbelle]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Many people here at BSN believe that Synthesis is an abominable choice, and are frustrated that BioWare presented it as the best choice. Some even think that the favorable presentation of Synthesis suggests that the writers completely lost touch with their own story. Although I like the results of Synthesis, I hate the way it is implemented, and I think Shepard's new Extended Cut dialogue explains the main problem:

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

Does the addition of this line suggest that the writers actually are aware of the serious ethical problem of Synthesis? The line is very effective because it exposes the megalomania inherent within the choice. Not even Control gets such criticism from Shepard; he just complains about not wanting to lose everything he has.

Then again, Shepard gives an inspiring "freedom" speech if you choose Refuse, and the result is annihilation. So I suppose you can argue that the writers actually made the entire ending even more morally objectionable.

I created this thread because I recently completed my first Renegade playthrough of ME3, and I had the most frustrating time trying to make Shepard favor the idea of Control. Almost every encounter with the Illusive Man resulted in complete rejection of Control, even as a Renegade. When it comes down to it, BioWare failed to present a compelling argument for Control and Synthesis. And when you have a quote like this from Mac Walters:

"You can't go and find one Reaper who actually turns out to be a good guy… things like, 'Oh, yeah, these Reapers are OK.' People playing the game will hopefully say, ‘Nope. They're as bad as everyone said they are.' You really don't want to be doing anything but killing them."

... what are we supposed to think?

I think that the original Deus Ex did something similar, and much better. Because???

Each choice had an advocate. A person with a reason to actively desire JC to take action preferably to their goal's.

The Catalyst, by contrast, tries to advocate everything. But ultimately, would really..... really...... REALLY prefer it if Shepard jumped into the big energy beam and disintegrated himself for....... You know what? Let's just expalin that away with the word Catalyst.

Anyway. Given that the Cat is one person, attempting to advocate 3 option's, it was not a surprise to read how some think the Cat is attempting to manipulate Shepard. In Deus Ex the manipulation was on the level. Each advocate tried to paint the prettiest picture of their idea of how the world should work. Fully in the knowledge that the power rested in JC's hand's.

Basically, Anderson, TIM and the Cat needed a clash. TIM and Anderson died to soon. TIM as the advocate of control, but who could ultimately not do it himself as he was indoctrinated. Anderson who just want's the Reaper's dead and if EDI and the Geth have to die, so be it. (Anderson doesn't have Shepard's affinity for synthetic life having never had to live alongside one after all).

And finally the Cat. Free to advocate synthesis like his little synthetic life depended on it. Free to argue against control or destroy. And finally free of his requirement that he try and make argument's that sound ok till you realise he's arguing against himself.

Modifié par Redbelle, 20 mai 2013 - 07:58 .

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

There is no "pinnacle of evolution" either. I have no idea why this simple truth escaped the ME writers. Perhaps it's a religious matter. Given the prevalence of eschatological imagery in the Synthesis exposition, it wouldn't surprise me. Or it was just written with a "players are morons" mindset.

Sadly, at this point I could see it going either way

I think it was a bit of both.

So it's half religion, half taking the players for morons? Ugh. I'm suddenly teeling as if I should run away fast from the next ME game.

[Ieldra]

@Redbelle:
That wouldn't have worked as well as in DX. In DX; we could understand what each of the ending choices was about because their spokespeople were allies. They had helped you on your mission significantly at least once, and you had talked with them and could understand their ideology. TIM would have to be written very differently, and I don't know if the Catalyst would've been possible to write as a convincing spokesperson at all.

[AlanC9]

Eretikas wrote...

Bioware could fix it easily without changing all endings too much:

High EMS Synthesis: Current ending.

Very High EMS Synthesis: Allow to for synthesis to be an individual choice. Basically, very high EMS would force catalyst/reapers to surrender, so Shepard won't feel like catalyst's puppet executing orders of his arch enemy. Catalyst gives away information on how to do synthesis procedure. EDI and Joker could apply first . Shepard stays alive and don't have to change who he is.

High EMS Control: Current ending.

Very High EMS Controls: Reapers surrender, are freed from catalyst control and do repair of the Galaxy. Shepard stays alive and don't have to change who he is.

High EMS Destroy: Current ending.

Very High EMS Destroy: Reapers power themselves off in a non violent manner. Shepard and synthetics stays alive.

I guess, this would make everybody happy.

Not everybody.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

funny

[KingZayd]

Eretikas wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
They didn't want a good option. If there was a good option, then it'd be easy to make a decision you were comfortable with.

Easy options must be available to very high EMS - because hard work must be rewarding.

As much as I hate the endings, I have to disagree. Yes, your choices and efforts really should have been rewarded more. It should have been more like the Normandy modifications before the suicide mission. Definitely should have been more variables than EMS and readiness. But that the options have to necessarily be easy? nope.

[AlanC9]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

funny

In all seriousness, though, some of those ideas would make the game worse for me.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

KingZayd wrote...

Eretikas wrote...

KingZayd wrote...
They didn't want a good option. If there was a good option, then it'd be easy to make a decision you were comfortable with.

Easy options must be available to very high EMS - because hard work must be rewarding.

As much as I hate the endings, I have to disagree. Yes, your choices and efforts really should have been rewarded more. It should have been more like the Normandy modifications before the suicide mission. Definitely should have been more variables than EMS and readiness. But that the options have to necessarily be easy? nope.

Something that I feel is a problem is that it just doesn't feel like it rewards players for their efforts through the trilogy in the ending. You get the same ending as a person who just bought ME3. It's not based off anything you did in the trilogy.

[JasonShepard]

iakus wrote...

aug1796 wrote...

What people don't realize is the control ending is just as ethical as destroy.....who says that Shepard has to use the reapers....he could just decide to pilot them into the sun...Problem solved no reapers and everything can go back to a semi-normal state...

1)  that's not Shepard.  That's an AI based upon Shep's memories, but still a distinct, independant entity.

Odd. I distinctly remember the Catalyst saying something to the effect of "You will Control the Reapers". Not "An AI that isn't really you and is just based on your memories will Control the Reapers."

On a more scientific note, sufficient computing power could accurately duplicate the human brain. Consciousness is almost certainly quantum in nature (we don't actually know), but destructive analysis allows for transfer of quantum states from one medium to another - in this case, from the human brain onto a Quantum Bluebox. In other words: with what we're given in game, I'm willing to believe continuity of consciousness between Shepard and the Shepard-AI. In other words, that AI is Shepard.

2) It clearly does not fly them into the sun, but keeps them aroud to "guide" the other races.

Big Shepard is watching...

Only if you play from the EC. The original endings allowed a lot more flexibility with what happened after Control. In any case, the EC Control epilogue can still be interpreted in more than one way. For example:

Repairing the Relays, sharing technology with the galaxy and proceeding to guard the galaxy against any external threats accomplishes all of the Shepard-AI's stated aims, without creating a big-brother state. It even explains what the Reapers were doing in London and on Rannoch in the slides - sharing knowledge before leaving for dark space.

[Nerevar-as]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Redbelle:
That wouldn't have worked as well as in DX. In DX; we could understand what each of the ending choices was about because their spokespeople were allies. They had helped you on your mission significantly at least once, and you had talked with them and could understand their ideology. TIM would have to be written very differently, and I don't know if the Catalyst would've been possible to write as a convincing spokesperson at all.

I think TIM would have worked fine as he was, advocating for Control and the advantages it would give humanity. All needed was to remove how obvious it was he was indoctrinated, and not taking so many pointless (and extremely cruel) actions. I have no idea why Cerberus was on my way half the time. Destroy talked for itself just playing the game, but Synthesis... Starbrat is really the only one who can "seriously" push for it, and we know its judgement isn´t the best.

I would have liked Destroy was triggered by refusing, though, with Shepard asking everyone available to fire on his/her position. Don´t care that much about his/her survival.