drayfish wrote...
Again: the decisions at the end of the game are in no possible way difficult.
The end decision is difficult because unlike virtually every choice in the Mass Effect series, it creates conflicts within a specific moral system.
Other decisions all conform to Paragon/Renegade, which essentially means that once you have decided on a morality for your character, you already know how to respond to the situations given to you.
Take the example of a Paragon that follows deontological ethics; he will decide on the moralty of the act itself instead of the consequences. This will provide a baseline through which the player can judge situations. Of course, that's rarely necessary because most ME decisions have either a really "Paragon" or really "Renegade" choice. An exception here that comes to mind is the geth heretic decision.
The ending choice is another, because for each ending there are reasons to either shy away or be drawn towards it within a system of ethics. Each ending has Paragon reasons for picking it. Each has Renegade reasons. Since the endings are not clearly labeled into one morality type or another, you need to think about the morality of the act and the consequences. For Control; I save the geth and EDI, but the Reapers still exist. For Synthesis, I free the Reapers, but I free the Reapers. For Destroy, I destroy the geth and EDI, but I give the galaxy the chance to make peace again on its own terms, rejecting the Catalyst's racist fatalistic spiel.
To summarize, the ending choices are hard because they are less a clash of ethical systems and more an internal conflict within each ethics system.
Your argument hinges uponacceptance of the idea that the lack of grim or foreboding slides in the epilogues means that each ending is considered utopic. This is a problematic assertion for a few reasons.
1. You either think hard about the choice or you don't. If you don't, then those types of ending slides are irrelevant. If you do, then you know the possible dire implications of your choice anyway and don't need slides to confirm this.
2. Such slides do not raise moral problems so much as they prescribe to the player what their ending means. How can you raise the question of whether or not in Destroy organic/synthetic relations will work in the future without confirming the question one way or another? How can you represent the potential danger of freed Reapers in Synthesis without showing conflict or war, which less raises the question and more answers it (they are dangerous, society will not accept them, will cause wars, etc)
So I think your argument counts on the stupidity of the player. If they cannot recognize the dangers and drawbacks inherent in their ending choice, if they cannot recognize the utter loss that the geth/EDI destruction represents, or how an overpowering synthetic police force is philosophically and practically problematic, then screw em; such ending slides would be wasted on them.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 28 juin 2013 - 03:38 .
Retour en haut
(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(
