606 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

Well yeah there beliefs are their own, but that cannot be used in argument. If a person has an opinion and it affects drastically the outcome of a situation it must be subjected to criticism and if the person wishes defended.

This get of jail free card, everything is subjective. It is a plague that has affected the entire gaming community to avoid committing both in argument and review scores. It is ultimately damaging to the industry.

[Benchpress610]

hpjay wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

It’s always amused me how some people attribute to piece of writing a meaning that was never intended by the writer.

 

It matters less what the autor put there and matters more what the reader/player finds there.  Read Robert Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.  That poem is rich with interpretation.  It means allot of different things to alot of different people.  But to Frost it was simply a poem about a guy going thru the woods...  he didn't intend any deeper meaning.

Well I don’t know how Frost felt about it, but if I was to write something, I would put it in a way that it was fully understood and interpreted in the way I intended. I would be very upset at myself and my writing abilities if people all of the sudden started drawing things out of it that I never meant.
 It all hinges in the quality of the writer. But then again, Frosts and Kafkas don’t grow on trees.

Edited for clarity

Modifié par Benchpress610, 16 juin 2013 - 01:10 .

[Benchpress610]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm in the other side of the camp there. If I wrote a song, I'd want it understood. I don't want to meet someone who think it's about something else entirely. Or worse, they're Charlie Manson and think Helter Skelter is some mantra for starting a cult and killing random movie stars.

Exactly my point…

[Reorte]

Maxster_ wrote...

Reorte wrote...

iakus wrote...

I wonder how many people don't think genociding all synthetic life to save organics is racist, but think Ashley WIlliams's "bear and the dog" analogy is?

Her analogy is racist because of the assumtion that it's a valid analogy. A very big difference between an alien and a dog is that the alien is sapient and the dog is not. The Destroy decision though is making a choice against the Reapers (who would kill the synthetics anyway) and, given that the alternatives are even worse and you've 100% only got those choices to pick, is not racist.

Irrelevant.
Analogy was about interstellar politics, and it is completely correct, given the lore and history of MEU.
And of course, there is nothing racist in it.

If it's not racist then it's a lousy analogy since the reason people would leave the dog behind is because it's a non-sapient creature  - so it's either pushing down aliens, or being a really bad analogy.

Whether something is racist or not is 100% down to the motivation behind the action and not the action itself.

This is false.
Look at the genocide examples(or rights inequality set in laws) in human history, and say that actions doesn't matters.

What's that got to do with it? I didn't say that actions don't matter, of course they do. But the results aren't what decide whether the action was racist or not, it's the motivation behind them. By your logic it would be impossible to attack someone of a different race without being racist.

Modifié par Reorte, 16 juin 2013 - 01:05 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David working his magic?

Bill continuing his glorious breakdown over a video game's crappy ending?

People actually trying to argue with these crazies?

Just another beautiful day in the BSN.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Fandango9641 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Would you just prefer a story with no villain at all, maybe? No conflict at all?

Are we even having the same conversation? To confirm, I've no problem with Mac and Casey setting the Reapers up as an impossibly powerful, horribly racist threat. My issue is that the game sets things up in such a way as to reward those who would embrace the Catalysts xenophobic logic in pursuit of victory. What is it you're having trouble understanding here David? Is there a point to any of these questions?

See, but Destroy is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.

Destroy is consistent with the Catalyst's actions, but in defiance of his logic. The Catalyst's point is that Organics/Synthetics will always come into conflict and that, regardless of right/wrong or who started it, will end with the death of all organics by synthetics. The Reapers are intended as the Catalyst's solution to this conflict.

It's because Shepard (or the player) has enough faith that Synthetics/Organics can be made to coexist that he murders EDI/the Geth, not because he doesn't think he can trust them. When you choose Destroy, the Catalyst is skeptical, preferring the other two options. The purpose of Destroy is to remove the Reapers, which are/were the Catalyst's perceived solution to the synthetic problem. Embracing either Control or Synthesis is acknowledging the Catalyst's view that Synthetics are a problem which need to be accounted for. The synthetics are collateral damage in Destroy, but they're not the target of the attack which was always the Reapers.

Just to be clear, I'm not denying that the Catalyst is an idiotic plot device or that his reasoning sucks. I'm simply saying that Destroy itself is not built on racism, but the opposite. It's built on the idea that organics and synthetics can be made to coexist, in some form. That's what makes this ending choice so strange is that players who do have enough faith that no other solution is needed are the ones responsible for genocide.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 juin 2013 - 05:23 .

[Maxster_]

Reorte wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

This is false.
Look at the genocide examples(or rights inequality set in laws) in human history, and say that actions doesn't matters.

What's that got to do with it? I didn't say that actions don't matter, of course they do. But the results aren't what decide whether the action was racist or not, it's the motivation behind them. By your logic it would be impossible to attack someone of a different race without being racist.

So, restricting laws and genocide against specific race(s) is not a racist if there is plausible justification behind them?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Maxster_ wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

This is false.
Look at the genocide examples(or rights inequality set in laws) in human history, and say that actions doesn't matters.

What's that got to do with it? I didn't say that actions don't matter, of course they do. But the results aren't what decide whether the action was racist or not, it's the motivation behind them. By your logic it would be impossible to attack someone of a different race without being racist.

So, restricting laws and genocide against specific race(s) is not a racist if there is plausible justification behind them?

Well, it doesn't even need to be plausible, as long as the action isn't fueled by traits inherent to that particular group. The Geth were caught in the crossfire, they weren't the target of the assault. When we start murdering all synthetics specifically because they are synthetic, then we're talking.

Case in point: hate crimes. A hate crime is not simply when you attack of someone of a different race than you. It's when you target someone because of their race. South Park actually had a hilarious plotline revolving around this distinction when Cartman throws a rock at Token, the only black kid in town. The FBI comes in and arrests him under a "hate crime" even though the action was not racially motivated.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 juin 2013 - 07:42 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I'm sorry but one need only browse this thread to understand that ours is an ending that rewards the bigoted, racist logic of those who would say...

Draining Dragon wrote...

How can you be racist against machines?

They aren't alive. No matter how intelligent a machine is, it's not alive.

...and punishes those who respects basic, fundamental freedoms.

That's great, except it doesn't matter what some moron thinks on the internet. Racism is based on motivation, not on action. Post something which contributes more than: "Look, another idiot making stupid comments!".

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 juin 2013 - 08:40 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Fandango9641 wrote...


I'm not presuming to know the mind of everyone playing the game BaladasDemnevanni, I'm just making the point that ME3 is a game that rewards those who accept the Catalysts racist mantra and celebrates the virtue of, what I perceive to be, three horrific acts of violence. Problem?

Again, depends on how you define accept. The Catalyst does not like Destroy, hence his other two solutions which he's pretty adamant about pushing.  

If all that is important are actions and not motivations, you're going to have alot of trouble justifying quite a few things you can do in a Bioware game. Hell, at one point in DA:O, you have the opportunity to kill a child, but it's not done for "lol I'm evil". Not in dialogue anyway. Some players will take the opportunity to choose these actions for their own idiotic/sickening reasons, but I don't see that as an indicator that Bioware is supporting their playstyles. It's merely a byproduct.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Shepard himself isn't even given the opportunity to express support for the Catalyst's racist views against synthetics when contemplating Destroy? 

[KaiserShep]

The catalyst is not actually fond of control either, per his own admission that it does not look forward to being replaced.

[AresKeith]

KaiserShep wrote...

The catalyst is not actually fond of control either, per his own admission that it does not look forward to being replaced.

But it does consider it better than Destroy, Synthesis is it's prize baby

[spirosz]

spirosz wrote...

Again?

[KaiserShep]

AresKeith wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

The catalyst is not actually fond of control either, per his own admission that it does not look forward to being replaced.

But it does consider it better than Destroy, Synthesis is it's prize baby

Well sure, since only control and synthesis grant credence to its cockamamie inevitability concept. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

KaiserShep wrote...

The catalyst is not actually fond of control either, per his own admission that it does not look forward to being replaced.

It's been a while since I played the EC, so I do forget some stuff, apologies. The big thing to consider is that Control does endorse the Catalyst's belief regarding Organics vs. Synthetics, even if his self-preservation instinct makes him favor Synthesis most of all.

[Nightwriter]

Too right we missed it. Talk about dodging a bullet, phew.

[angol fear]

StreetMagic wrote...

Now that I discovered there was a leaked ending before, it all makes sense why the game turned out the way it did. Deus Ex Machina is an act of haste and desperation. Hardly anyone does it deliberately unless they're children or just literary hacks. But under pressure, the best writers can be reduced to hacks.

It seems that there was several leaked ending... Anyway, you should moderate your thoughts, your opinion.
Deus ex machina is used by children and "hackers"? Do you know that Deus ex machina was used in Antiquity, it has nothing to do with haste and desperation, the most serious writers used it and it's the basis of our culture! I mean I know that americans like Robert Mc Kee doesn't like Deus ex machina but there is no reason : a lot of story that don't have DEM actually use another form of this. A good reader don't blame DEM, he tries to understand how and why it is used in the story. In Mass Effect, the A.I. is and isn't at the same time DEM for many reason but the most important is to understand why it fits to the story (because it actually fits with the writing of the trilogy).

Modifié par angol fear, 17 juin 2013 - 04:27 .

[txgoldrush]

Draining Dragon wrote...

Sacrifice was never a primary theme of Mass Effect.

The primary theme was unity. That would be why, you know, we were cleaning up everybody's back yards for them.

Wrong...unity is far from the primary theme

ME2 did not even have this theme and ME1, the theme can be subverted.

And its not part of the final conflict between Shepard and the Reapers. Unity at best is a major sub theme, a secondary theme, not a primary one.