369 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is it really correct to say that they poison-chaliced Refuse in the EC? 

Yep. 

An actual argument here would be nice.

[Iakus]

Robosexual wrote...

So, to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to your morals?

If a game claims to offer numerous choices and a variety of outcomes based on those choices, I'd expect there to be at least something to be found I wouldn't find morally reprehensible.  Not just three color coded atricities or a "Rocks fall, how dare you stand on your principles" options

[Ticonderoga117]

A toast, to artistic integrity and making problems worse. But hey, it's ok, because a few slides and a epilogue handwave covers all.

[Clayless]

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

So, to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to your morals?

If a game claims to offer numerous choices and a variety of outcomes based on those choices, I'd expect there to be at least something to be found I wouldn't find morally reprehensible.  Not just three color coded atricities or a "Rocks fall, how dare you stand on your principles" options

Even though the question wasn't directed at you, it would be a yes from you in other words.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Is it really correct to say that they poison-chaliced Refuse in the EC? 

Yep. 

An actual argument here would be nice.

Yes.

So I should wait for drayfish to get back, I guess.

[AlanC9]

Robosexual wrote...

iakus wrote...

Robosexual wrote...
So, to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to your morals?

If a game claims to offer numerous choices and a variety of outcomes based on those choices, I'd expect there to be at least something to be found I wouldn't find morally reprehensible.  Not just three color coded atricities or a "Rocks fall, how dare you stand on your principles" options

Even though the question wasn't directed at you, it would be a yes from you in other words.

Only a yes to the second part of your question, I think. He could still like hard choices as long as at least two options passed the morality test ( if only one passed the choice wouldn't be hard anymore)

[Clayless]

AlanC9 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Even though the question wasn't directed at you, it would be a yes from you in other words.

Only a yes to the second part of your question, I think. He could still like hard choices as long as at least two options passed the morality test ( if only one passed the choice wouldn't be hard anymore)

Even then how do you make hard choices that aren't morally grey? Killing squadmates? Ignoring the problem currently but possibly dooming the future? I can't think of anything really.

[AlanC9]

I should leave this to iakus, but as I understand his position he isn't objecting to greyness per se, he just has a threshold value for "atrocity."

[CronoDragoon]

Robosexual wrote...

Even then how do you make hard choices that aren't morally grey? Killing squadmates? Ignoring the problem currently but possibly dooming the future? I can't think of anything really.

That actually was one of the two options in the rough "Dark Energy" ending outline: allow humanity to become a Reaper in order to contribute to solving the dark energy problem, or refuse and rely on finding another way to solve it in the future. Myself I think that sounds like a pretty terrible ending and a cop-out. It's virtually not a choice at all.

But in any case moral ambiguity is not the same thing as choosing between "atrocities." People who believe the worst about the endings do not really feel morally conflicted at all, because they feel every choice is a non-starter.

[drayfish]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should put your perceptions to work and speak to the many posters on the BSN gleefully shilling 'moral ambiguity' and condemning heroism as naive and stupid. This is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like.

Robosexual wrote...

So,
to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it
gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to
your morals?

I'll respond to both of these together, since they fit in the same wheelhouse of disingenuously lumping anyone who doesn't agree to go along with the ending's asinine premise as being too 'cowardly' to make a 'tough' choice...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is the complete opposite of a hard choice, and is perhaps the most ill-conceived, self-defeating example it is possible to offer for genuine moral ambiguity.

Choosing any of the three endings provided by Bioware as the 'good' results - despite depicting genocide, an absolute totalitarian regime, or forced eugenics - all end in a gleeful celebration. 

The game literally tells you that these 'sacrifices' don't matter, because everone is happy now, and building a better future. 

That's not moral ambiguity.  That's not Hamlet weighing up the price of murder.  That's tacit endorsement of atrocity smothered in a patronising pat on the head. 

Did you kill the Geth?  Well don't feel bad, 'cause we can rebuild everything that's been lost...

Did you take control of an unstoppable armada of killing machines, even after everyone else who tried that degenerated into a ruthless maniac?  Well that's okay because you're you, and everybody loves you...

Did you violate the sanctity of every living being against their will to alter them for all time?  Well don't worry, because they are all suddenly happy that you did that to them, and now cheer your name...

Indeed, in every single ending the Stargazer speaks of you as a hero hero of legend who did precisely what needed to be done, for the benefit of all life.  Even putting aside how idiotic it is to arbitrarilly paint each of those endings in the same cheery gloss, turning Shepard into a saviour - a mythic figure of religious import - diminishes any such 'moral' ambiguity that you are pretending exists.

Any qualms about what happens in those endings are brought to the text by the player, horrified by what they have just witnessed.  The game itself wants to just cheer you on, and say none of that stuff mattered anyway.

Modifié par drayfish, 27 juin 2013 - 01:41 .

[Argentoid]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

A lot of people found peace with the EC.

I was unexpectedly one of them. I hated the original endings. For 3 and a half months I went from IT believer (a very short stint right at the beginning of the outrage, not the ridiculousness that it's become now), to being completely full of rage towards Bioware when I figured out the EC wasn't going to fix anything but only make it longer....


And then 5am came (a year ago today) and I downloaded the EC....and then the pieces started to fall in place, and then the dialogue wheel popped up as the Catalyst spoke, and then it explained itself, and then by accident I was one of the very first people to experience the Refuse ending. I loved it (It is my least preferred choice btw). I loved that BW gave us a chance to take a moral stand/they made it possible to fall to the Reapers/and they made Liara the next cycle's Vigil. In utter shock I proceeded to reload and try out each ending.


I was so happy. The overwhelming ambiguity and vagueness were gone. The blanks were filled in. I saw what my choices did for the galaxy and the future I had made possible. And most importantly, it made sense to me.

Never thought I would read that on this forum again Q_Q.

Me neither...

Wow, just... wow.

[Clayless]

drayfish wrote...

I'll respond to both of these together, since they fit in the same wheelhouse of disingenuously lumping anyone who doesn't agree to go along with the ending's asinine premise as being too 'cowardly' to make a 'tough' choice...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is the complete opposite of a hard choice, and is perhaps the most ill-conceived, self-defeating example it is possible to offer for genuine moral ambiguity.

Choosing any of the three endings provided by Bioware as the 'good' results - despite depicting genocide, an absolute totalitarian regime, or forced eugenics - all end in a gleeful celebration. 

The game literally tells you that these 'sacrifices' don't matter, because everone is happy now, and building a better future. 

That's not moral ambiguity.  That's not Hamlet weighing up the price of murder.  That's tacit endorsement of atrocity smothered in a patronising pat on the head. 

Did you kill the Geth?  Well don't feel bad, 'cause we can rebuild everything that's been lost...

Did you take control of an unstoppable armada of killing machines, even after everyone else who tried that degenerated into a ruthless maniac?  Well that's okay because you're you, and everybody loves you...

Did you violate the sanctity of every living being against their will to alter them for all time?  Well don't worry, because they are all suddenly happy that you did that to them, and now cheer your name...

Indeed, in every single ending the Stargazer speaks of you as a hero hero of legend who did precisely what needed to be done, for the benefit of all life.  Even putting aside how idiotic it is to arbitrarilly paint each of those endings in the same cheery gloss, turning Shepard into a saviour - a mythic figure of religious import - diminishes any such 'moral' ambiguity that you are pretending exists.

Any qualms about what happens in those endings are brought to the text by the player, horrified by what they have just witnessed.  The game itself wants to just cheer you on, and say none of that stuff mattered anyway.

Your entire post relies on the assumption that the galaxy knew Shepard chose that, and nothing in the end suggests they do. The galaxy built the Crucible, it never fired, Shepard got to the control panel and activated the Crucible. What they at least know is he rallied the galaxy behind him to save it, and what they might know by the end is he activated the Crucible when it never fired. There isn't anything to suggest they knew about the choices.

So your complaint about the end really just relies on an assumption you made that they galaxy knew about the choices, despite that not being suggested anywhere.

[Mcfly616]

drayfish wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should put your perceptions to work and speak to the many posters on the BSN gleefully shilling 'moral ambiguity' and condemning heroism as naive and stupid. This is exactly what 'moral ambiguity' looks like.

Robosexual wrote...

So,
to get this straight, you hate a game about hard choices because it
gave you a hard choice? Or you think that all stories should conform to
your morals?

despite depicting genocide, an absolute totalitarian regime, or forced eugenics

that's just the way you view them. It's subjective. Maybe you're a pessimist?

Some people don't see it as genocide. Some people don't see a totalitarian regime.....some people view the Reapers as Galactic guardians that probably won't interfere in the day to day business of the lesser species of the galaxy. Some people don't view it as forced eugenics.

Not to mention nobody knows what happened up there except for Shepard and the Catalyst. For all anybody else knows, it was a mere miracle that stopped the utter destruction of everything and everyone that anybody ever knew.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

I should leave this to iakus, but as I understand his position he isn't objecting to greyness per se, he just has a threshold value for "atrocity."

Pretty much.  Moral greyness to me implies that while your options are not perfect, it is balanced by a degree of benefit.  Thus "grey".  Here I see only black.  The only real benefit is "the galaxy didn't die"  Sorry, that's not enough.  That's something to be expected in every situation that isn't a complete "You lose"   it's no reward to balance the horror Shepard is compelled to inflict.  

[drayfish]

Robosexual wrote...

drayfish wrote...

I'll respond to both of these together, since they fit in the same wheelhouse of disingenuously lumping anyone who doesn't agree to go along with the ending's asinine premise as being too 'cowardly' to make a 'tough' choice...

The ending of Mass Effect 3 is the complete opposite of a hard choice, and is perhaps the most ill-conceived, self-defeating example it is possible to offer for genuine moral ambiguity.

Choosing any of the three endings provided by Bioware as the 'good' results - despite depicting genocide, an absolute totalitarian regime, or forced eugenics - all end in a gleeful celebration. 

The game literally tells you that these 'sacrifices' don't matter, because everone is happy now, and building a better future. 

That's not moral ambiguity.  That's not Hamlet weighing up the price of murder.  That's tacit endorsement of atrocity smothered in a patronising pat on the head. 

Did you kill the Geth?  Well don't feel bad, 'cause we can rebuild everything that's been lost...

Did you take control of an unstoppable armada of killing machines, even after everyone else who tried that degenerated into a ruthless maniac?  Well that's okay because you're you, and everybody loves you...

Did you violate the sanctity of every living being against their will to alter them for all time?  Well don't worry, because they are all suddenly happy that you did that to them, and now cheer your name...

Indeed, in every single ending the Stargazer speaks of you as a hero hero of legend who did precisely what needed to be done, for the benefit of all life.  Even putting aside how idiotic it is to arbitrarilly paint each of those endings in the same cheery gloss, turning Shepard into a saviour - a mythic figure of religious import - diminishes any such 'moral' ambiguity that you are pretending exists.

Any qualms about what happens in those endings are brought to the text by the player, horrified by what they have just witnessed.  The game itself wants to just cheer you on, and say none of that stuff mattered anyway.

Your entire post relies on the assumption that the galaxy knew Shepard chose that, and nothing in the end suggests they do. The galaxy built the Crucible, it never fired, Shepard got to the control panel and activated the Crucible. What they at least know is he rallied the galaxy behind him to save it, and what they might know by the end is he activated the Crucible when it never fired. There isn't anything to suggest they knew about the choices.

So your complaint about the end really just relies on an assumption you made that they galaxy knew about the choices, despite that not being suggested anywhere.

Actually, I'm talking about the text itself, and the message that it is sending to it's audience.

Arguing that because (maybe) no one else in the universe figured out what Shepard did, the decision therefore has no larger ramifications is very peculiar.  ...And also undercuts those 'moral ambiguities' you were applauding before.

I cited Hamlet earlier.  Just because Hamlet doesn't pull Horatio aside and say, 'Hey, Horation, I'm thinking about suicide and stuff...' doesn't mean that his private ruminations upon murder and morality and evil don't matter, that they aren't a central part of the text.

[Clayless]

drayfish wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Your entire post relies on the assumption that the galaxy knew Shepard chose that, and nothing in the end suggests they do. The galaxy built the Crucible, it never fired, Shepard got to the control panel and activated the Crucible. What they at least know is he rallied the galaxy behind him to save it, and what they might know by the end is he activated the Crucible when it never fired. There isn't anything to suggest they knew about the choices.

So your complaint about the end really just relies on an assumption you made that they galaxy knew about the choices, despite that not being suggested anywhere.

Actually, I'm talking about the text itself, and the message that it is sending to it's audience.

Arguing that because (maybe) no one else in the universe figured out what Shepard did, the decision therefore has no larger ramifications is very peculiar.  ...And also undercuts those 'moral ambiguities' you were applauding before.

I cited Hamlet earlier.  Just because Hamlet doesn't pull Horatio aside and say, 'Hey, Horation, I'm thinking about suicide and stuff...' doesn't mean that his private ruminations upon murder and morality and evil don't matter, that they aren't a central part of the text.

The message it's sending, clear as day, is this is a hard choice. Hence your complaints, you hate the fact that you had to make a hard choice in a game about hard choices. Your attempts to disprove this has been, what, saying it's not hard and then talking about how other people would react? You seem to think that making a hard choice in someway diminishes that choice, makes it all right, based on an assumption you created in your head about the galaxy knowing said choice was made.

There's no "undercutting", no fogging off of "larger ramifications", you're literally just saying things that aren't relevant to what we're talking about. You're the one that's complaining about the hard choices, complaining that not everyone abides by your morals (shock horror, some people would sacrifice the few to save everyone else), and any attempts to pretend that I'm the one trying to dismiss or ignore anything, despite the fact my entire argument has been the complete opposite, is pure nonsense.

Now I'm going to take your post here and show what you're saying:

"Actually, I'm talking about the text itself, and the message that it is sending to it's audience." - What message? That hard choices have to be made in a game about hard choices. Sure. Or that (something you don't like) is good? Your point? Is it that stories should confine to your morals? Because saying that you perceive the game to be sending out a message isn't a point, it's an observation.

Your second paragraph was addressed above, and your third one is yet another observation that isn't relevant to anything in this conversation. Not talking to someone else about a hard decision doesn't mean it's not central? Ok. That's interesting, though irrelevant to this.

[dreamgazer]

(grabs popcorn)

[AresKeith]

*sees Robosexuals post*

*walks back out*

[KENNY4753]

So it has been a year since the Extended Butt already?

[drayfish]

Robosexual wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Your entire post relies on the assumption that the galaxy knew Shepard chose that, and nothing in the end suggests they do. The galaxy built the Crucible, it never fired, Shepard got to the control panel and activated the Crucible. What they at least know is he rallied the galaxy behind him to save it, and what they might know by the end is he activated the Crucible when it never fired. There isn't anything to suggest they knew about the choices.

So your complaint about the end really just relies on an assumption you made that they galaxy knew about the choices, despite that not being suggested anywhere.

Actually, I'm talking about the text itself, and the message that it is sending to it's audience.

Arguing that because (maybe) no one else in the universe figured out what Shepard did, the decision therefore has no larger ramifications is very peculiar.  ...And also undercuts those 'moral ambiguities' you were applauding before.

I cited Hamlet earlier.  Just because Hamlet doesn't pull Horatio aside and say, 'Hey, Horation, I'm thinking about suicide and stuff...' doesn't mean that his private ruminations upon murder and morality and evil don't matter, that they aren't a central part of the text.

The message it's sending, clear as day, is this is a hard choice. Hence your complaints, you hate the fact that you had to make a hard choice in a game about hard choices. Your attempts to disprove this has been, what, saying it's not hard and then talking about how other people would react? You seem to think that making a hard choice in someway diminishes that choice, makes it all right, based on an assumption you created in your head about the galaxy knowing said choice was made.

There's no "undercutting", no fogging off of "larger ramifications", you're literally just saying things that aren't relevant to what we're talking about. You're the one that's complaining about the hard choices, complaining that not everyone abides by your morals (shock horror, some people would sacrifice the few to save everyone else), and any attempts to pretend that I'm the one trying to dismiss or ignore anything, despite the fact my entire argument has been the complete opposite, is pure nonsense.

Now I'm going to take your post here and show what you're saying:

"Actually, I'm talking about the text itself, and the message that it is sending to it's audience." - What message? That hard choices have to be made in a game about hard choices. Sure. Or that (something you don't like) is good? Your point? Is it that stories should confine to your morals? Because saying that you perceive the game to be sending out a message isn't a point, it's an observation.

Your second paragraph was addressed above, and your third one is yet another observation that isn't relevant to anything in this conversation. Not talking to someone else about a hard decision doesn't mean it's not central? Ok. That's interesting, though irrelevant to this.

Again: that is a disengenuous (and actually rather childish) oversimplification of the position of anyone who disagrees with the ending of Mass Effect. 

You keep clumslly attempting to paint anyone not wowed by the conclusion as a coward who is unwilling to make the 'touch choices'.  What I am (and have been) telling you is that there are no 'touch choices' at the end of Mass Effect 3.  The game strips all of the consequence and ambiguity away in pursuit of a witlessly idealised happy ending.  That's what's so disgusting, and so hilariously juvenile.  It doesn;t matter to the story, to the universe, to anything, what you chose.  The slaughter of a race?  Become an uber-god?  Mutate everyone without their permission?  None of it matters, because you 'won'.

Yay.

My issue is precisely that there should be more moral ambiguity: more consequence to the very disturbing choices that this ending evokes, and then cowardly ignores.

My problem is not the depiction of genocide, eugenics and totalitarianism (these elements have been a fundamental part of this game series' narrative for the past several years); my issue is that the ending takes these concepts and whitewashes them into a the most superficial of syrupy Disney spectacles.

You are attempting to claim deep philosophical resonance, while applauding the game for giving you a lollypop.

[Clayless]

drayfish wrote...

Again: that is a disengenuous (and actually rather childish) oversimplification of the position of anyone who disagrees with the ending of Mass Effect. 

You keep clumslly attempting to paint anyone not wowed by the conclusion as a coward who is unwilling to make the 'touch choices'.  What I am (and have been) telling you is that there are no 'touch choices' at the end of Mass Effect 3.  The game strips all of the consequence and ambiguity away in pursuit of a witlessly idealised happy ending.  That's what's so disgusting, and so hilariously juvenile.  It doesn;t matter to the story, to the universe, to anything, what you chose.  The slaughter of a race?  Become an uber-god?  Mutate everyone without their permission?  None of it matters, because you 'won'.

Yay.

My issue is precisely that there should be more moral ambiguity: more consequence to the very disturbing choices that this ending evokes, and then cowardly ignores.

My problem is not the depiction of genocide, eugenics and totalitarianism (these elements have been a fundamental part of this game series' narrative for the past several years); my issue is that the ending takes these concepts and whitewashes them into a the most superficial of syrupy Disney spectacles.

You are attempting to claim deep philosophical resonance, while applauding the game for giving you a lollypop.

So to be clear your entire point, your entire criticism of the hard choices that you spread out over six paragraphs of pure nonsense, is:

They should have concentrated on some of the more grey and black aspects of it.

That's it? You talk about Bioware sending a message despite the fact it has nothing to do with your point? You dislike the hard choices at the end of the game purely by what it decides to concentrate on after said choice is made, and the "message" this sends out is entirely irrelevant to this? It's literally just a pointless observation created to fill space in your post?

Modifié par Robosexual, 27 juin 2013 - 03:31 .

[AlanC9]

Robosexual wrote...

Your entire post relies on the assumption that the galaxy knew Shepard chose that, and nothing in the end suggests they do. The galaxy built the Crucible, it never fired, Shepard got to the control panel and activated the Crucible. What they at least know is he rallied the galaxy behind him to save it, and what they might know by the end is he activated the Crucible when it never fired. There isn't anything to suggest they knew about the choices.

So your complaint about the end really just relies on an assumption you made that they galaxy knew about the choices, despite that not being suggested anywhere.

Even if they knew, would they have given a damn? Any world where you haven't been exterminated by killer robots looks pretty good compared to one where you were.

But yeah, telling folks about the choices is up to high-EMS Destroy Sheps or the Sheplyst. My Destroy Sheps would come clean, but YMMV.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juin 2013 - 03:36 .

[dreamgazer]

The galaxy might not know about the three different options, but it'd take a very dense individual to not realize that the Crucible---the device Shepard, and his/her crew, spearheaded---caused either the destruction or the control of the Reapers at the end of the "war", and especially the mental and physical alterations in synthesis. There was a visible, forceful beam, after all.