485 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I don't think you've ever bothered to ask the question, which is probably why.

I've asked it several times.

I can't speak at any length to 'Arrival', because I've never played it (and frankly won't be bothering now), but from what I understand, there is a world of difference between being forced to sacrifice a few thousand Batarians in order to prevent immeasurably more slaughter (which, yes, is nonetheless horrifying), and being forced to concede that an entire race of beings are a real and imminent danger that must be exterminated, controlled, or mutated to protect civilisation from their destructive potential.

And here's where we part ways, because I simply don't see Shepard as having to concede that. What the Catalyst wants does not matter. All that matters is stopping the cycle and trying to get the best possible results out of it. What does it matter what a crazy AI says about the choices? It doesn't have to own Shepard's soul if you don't want it to.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't think you've ever bothered to ask the question, which is probably why.

I've asked it several times.

I can't speak at any length to 'Arrival', because I've never played it (and frankly won't be bothering now), but from what I understand, there is a world of difference between being forced to sacrifice a few thousand Batarians in order to prevent immeasurably more slaughter (which, yes, is nonetheless horrifying), and being forced to concede that an entire race of beings are a real and imminent danger that must be exterminated, controlled, or mutated to protect civilisation from their destructive potential.

And here's where we part ways, because I simply don't see Shepard as having to concede that. What the Catalyst wants does not matter. All that matters is stopping the cycle and trying to get the best possible results out of it. What does it matter what a crazy AI says about the choices? It doesn't have to own Shepard's soul if you don't want it to.

You've never asked about 'Arrival' to my recollection, or I'm sure I would have responded exactly as I just did.

And arguing that Shepard does not have to agree with the belief system of a racist, irrational AI is squabbling over semantics.  I am talking about the thematic statement of the ending - the message that the text itself is positing.  (After all, your Shepard may not have believed that the AIs were alive, either, but that did not stop the Geth and EDI from trying to assert their right to live, and having that be a fundamental through line of the story.)

Ultimately, having every available option at the conclusion of the game satisfy the wet dreams of a psychotic bigot is about as clear a statement as the game could possibly make.

I'm glad for you that your Shepard can argue her way around that, but neither my Shepard, nor I as the player watching this horrid message play out, can share your view.  If the game's only 'solution' to hatred and fear is to oppress, destroy, or mutate other races, because there is no hope for peace, then its message is clear.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 août 2013 - 05:11 .

[Slayer299]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

They were unexpected. Our solutions to everything would be to blow things up and shoot people, but the game ended with Shepard choosing how to commit suicide*. It's not really a bad concept, it's just a very unexpected one.

Sort of like if you got mustard on your burger instead of ketchup. Yeah, it would be unexpected and unwanted, but it would still be an edible burger.


*Except for one ending. That one is left to the imagination.

Of course if you're allergic to mustard, than that brings up all sorts of problems, doesn't it?

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...
And arguing that Shepard does not have to agree with the belief system of a racist, irrational AI is squabbling over semantics.  I am talking about the thematic statement of the ending - the message that the text itself is positing.  (After all, your Shepard may not have believed that the AIs were alive, either, but that did not stop the Geth and EDI from trying to assert their right to live, and having that be a fundamental through line of the story.).

I'll let Xil handle the substance here. But if you're making a thematic argument, this isn't a very good way to make it:

...... but from what I understand, there is a world of difference between being forced to sacrifice a few thousand Batarians in order to prevent immeasurably more slaughter (which, yes, is nonetheless horrifying), and being forced to concede that an entire race of beings are a real and imminent danger that must be exterminated, controlled, or mutated to protect civilisation from their destructive potential.

You're comparing an action Shepard takes in Arrival  with a concession someone makes in ME3. It sounds like you're talking about Shepard making a concession, but I guess you were actually talking about the player making a concession? (Themes aren't real for Shepard, since he's just living in his universe rather than interpreting it as a work of fiction.) It's a very odd comparison since there's a world of difference between anything I do as a player and the things my avatars do in their worlds. (Edit: I also don't see that anyone at all has to make that concession, but that's not really my point.)

Similarly, you shouldn't have dragged Shepard into this passage:

I'm glad for you that your Shepard can argue her way around that, but neither my Shepard, nor I as the player watching this horrid message play out, can share your view.  If the game's only 'solution' to hatred and fear is to oppress, destroy, or mutate other races, because there is no hope for peace, then its message is clear.

There's no such "message" for Shepard. You go to war with the Crucible you have, not the Crucible you wish you had.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 août 2013 - 08:22 .

[Fixers0]

An ending in which the protagnist believes that shooting a certain tube will destroy their primary antagonists because some glowboy said it will is beyond saving.

[KaiserShep]

Fixers0 wrote...

An ending in which the protagnist believes that shooting a certain tube will destroy their primary antagonists because some glowboy said it will is beyond saving.

Don't forget jumping into a laser beam or grabbing electric rods. There's no escape.

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

drayfish wrote...
And arguing that Shepard does not have to agree with the belief system of a racist, irrational AI is squabbling over semantics.  I am talking about the thematic statement of the ending - the message that the text itself is positing.  (After all, your Shepard may not have believed that the AIs were alive, either, but that did not stop the Geth and EDI from trying to assert their right to live, and having that be a fundamental through line of the story.).

I'll let Xil handle the substance here. But if you're making a thematic argument, this isn't a very good way to make it:

...... but from what I understand, there is a world of difference between being forced to sacrifice a few thousand Batarians in order to prevent immeasurably more slaughter (which, yes, is nonetheless horrifying), and being forced to concede that an entire race of beings are a real and imminent danger that must be exterminated, controlled, or mutated to protect civilisation from their destructive potential.

You're comparing an action Shepard takes in Arrival  with a concession someone makes in ME3. It sounds like you're talking about Shepard making a concession, but I guess you were actually talking about the player making a concession? (Themes aren't real for Shepard, since he's just living in his universe rather than interpreting it as a work of fiction.) It's a very odd comparison since there's a world of difference between anything I do as a player and the things my avatars do in their worlds. (Edit: I also don't see that anyone at all has to make that concession, but that's not really my point.)

Similarly, you shouldn't have dragged Shepard into this passage:

I'm glad for you that your Shepard can argue her way around that, but neither my Shepard, nor I as the player watching this horrid message play out, can share your view.  If the game's only 'solution' to hatred and fear is to oppress, destroy, or mutate other races, because there is no hope for peace, then its message is clear.

There's no such "message" for Shepard. You go to war with the Crucible you have, not the Crucible you wish you had.

Thank you for the gently patronising lecture, I'm sure - but my comments stand.

Indeed, you seem to have misunderstood the way that narrative functions - perhaps distracted by the illusion of player agency that the game evokes.  As I said, I am criticising the game and it's subtext, not your Shepard's actions within it, or how you choose to reason those actions away (because those details are, of course, fluid).  Shepard is but one character within a larger text - and it is the text that articulates its theme around her.

In 'Arrival', the narrative concludes with Shepard - despite her personal desire - sacrificing a colony no matter what.  'Shepard' makes the decision (outside of the player's choice), and the theme is pretty straightforwadly 'collatoral damage' for the greater good (no matter how ham-fistedly it was handled). 

A great many Batarians die there, but the text is not structured to argue that they deserve death.  Indeed, their deaths are lamented - even punished.

In ME3, the narrative is structured to conclude with a ringing endorsement of intolerance - whether Shepard wants to believe in that kind of racist drivel or not.  For three narratives the series has been forwarding the concept that synthetic beings have a right to life.  Your Shepard may disagree, but the text doesn't care.  EDI will still question her reality, will seek to become more 'human'.  The Geth will still strike out for independence - will seek to protect their selfhood.

But then the game ends by having the 'solution' to the 'inevitable' problem of racial disharmony be the extermination, enslavement, or mutation of other races.  Sure that's being spouted by a sociopathic AI, but it is earnestly delivered by the narrative, and no matter what Shepard picks, the fiction faithfully informs you that it worked, that no one regrets it, and that, yes, there really was a problem that only you had the strength to do anything about it.

(My gods, the pandering in those endings was incredible...)

Indeed, if you refuse, the next generation will just settle it for you by doing what you wouldn't, with the game itself (through Liara's summary) calling you a failure.

In contrast, if you select one of those options, you and the choice you made are gushed over unreservedly by either EDI, Hackett, or your own dispassionate floating God-head, as the greatest thing that has ever happened in history.

There's no subtlety there.  No 'grey' in that theme.

There was a problem: racial disharmony.  There was a solution: that other race has to be destroyed, dominated, or changed.  Bring on the brave new world.

Also, I'm not sure you want to so eagerly parrot the words of Donald Rumsfeld in your argument's summation, given the context of that quote.  When he made that rather flippant comment, Rumsfeld was dismissing the concerns of underfunded, under-protected troops who were asking him why they were being placed in harm's way, and had been committed to an overextended war effort based upon faulty intelligence.

Given the equivilencies that can be drawn between the argument for the Iraq invasion (Rumsfeld unreservedly assuring everyone that '[Iraq ]has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons' that '[Sadam Hussein's] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons') and the Catalyst's nonsense about Synthetics 'inevitably' destroying their creators, violent pre-emptive military attack based upon vague speculation looks rather misguided indeed.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 août 2013 - 12:03 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

The idea was good, no doubt, but they kinda needed to explain a few more things. Luckily, they did just that with the Extended Cut, so now the ending is pretty much perfect.

[MegaSovereign]

Drayfish, are you asserting that the non-Reaper synthetics are being controlled in the Control ending?

[ruggly]

^ I've seen other people say that, not sure if I believe it myself. But aren't the Geth and Quarians shown as seperate if you achieved peace?

[Xilizhra]

Ultimately, having every available option at the conclusion of the game satisfy the wet dreams of a psychotic bigot is about as clear a statement as the game could possibly make.

Both outcomes of ME1 satisfy TIM in ME2.

I'm glad for you that your Shepard can argue her way around that, but neither my Shepard, nor I as the player watching this horrid message play out, can share your view. If the game's only 'solution' to hatred and fear is to oppress, destroy, or mutate other races, because there is no hope for peace, then its message is clear.

No, the solution is to stop the cycle. It requires sacrifice, yes, but so does a whole lot else in the series.

But then the game ends by having the 'solution' to the 'inevitable' problem of racial disharmony be the extermination, enslavement, or mutation of other races. Sure that's being spouted by a sociopathic AI, but it is earnestly delivered by the narrative, and no matter what Shepard picks, the fiction faithfully informs you that it worked, that no one regrets it, and that, yes, there really was a problem that only you had the strength to do anything about it.

Destroy, I agree was badly implemented, and Synthesis' weirdness isn't for everyone. However... in Control, you don't see the Reapers doing any oppressing at all; you see them rebuilding. Renegade Shepard can get some oppression on in dialogue, but Paragon Shepard never gives that impression.

There was a problem: racial disharmony. There was a solution: that other race has to be destroyed, dominated, or changed. Bring on the brave new world.

So you weren't going into this with the expectation of destroying the Reapers? You were hoping all along for a diplomatic solution?

[shodiswe]

The presentation of the endings were terroble

[MegaSovereign]

ruggly wrote...

^ I've seen other people say that, not sure if I believe it myself. But aren't the Geth and Quarians shown as seperate if you achieved peace?

Yes, but this was already the status quo. Quarians claimed the agricultural land of Rannoch. Regardless, nothing in the Control ending implies that the Geth are being controlled. If we take what the Catalyst says about Destroy targetting synthetic life literally, then we have to acknowledge the fact that it states that only the Reapers are being controlled in Control.

[ruggly]

True enough. I figured people get that idea that they're being controlled since the Geth have Reaper code and EDI being built with Sovereign's tech that the control beam would target all of that, which would make sense, but the epilogues do show us otherwise.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ultimately, having every available option at the conclusion of the game satisfy the wet dreams of a psychotic bigot is about as clear a statement as the game could possibly make.

Both outcomes of ME1 satisfy TIM in ME2.

I'm glad for you that your Shepard can argue her way around that, but neither my Shepard, nor I as the player watching this horrid message play out, can share your view. If the game's only 'solution' to hatred and fear is to oppress, destroy, or mutate other races, because there is no hope for peace, then its message is clear.

No, the solution is to stop the cycle. It requires sacrifice, yes, but so does a whole lot else in the series.

But then the game ends by having the 'solution' to the 'inevitable' problem of racial disharmony be the extermination, enslavement, or mutation of other races. Sure that's being spouted by a sociopathic AI, but it is earnestly delivered by the narrative, and no matter what Shepard picks, the fiction faithfully informs you that it worked, that no one regrets it, and that, yes, there really was a problem that only you had the strength to do anything about it.

Destroy, I agree was badly implemented, and Synthesis' weirdness isn't for everyone. However... in Control, you don't see the Reapers doing any oppressing at all; you see them rebuilding. Renegade Shepard can get some oppression on in dialogue, but Paragon Shepard never gives that impression.

There was a problem: racial disharmony. There was a solution: that other race has to be destroyed, dominated, or changed. Bring on the brave new world.

So you weren't going into this with the expectation of destroying the Reapers? You were hoping all along for a diplomatic solution?

Your first point seems to be a complete non sequitur.  I'm sure there were plenty of choices that the Illusive Man thought were great.  So what?  It has no bearing upon Mass Effect 3's universal celebration of racial oppression.

Your second point misuses the term 'sacrifice' - unless you mean it in the tie-someone-to-an-altar-and-'sacrifice'-them-to-an-angry-god sense.  The 'cycle' that is being 'solved' is a murderous, self-justifying circle intended to prevent the 'inevitable' destruction of organics by synthetics.  But believing that the only way this racial war can be prevented is by destroying a race, mutating it, or enforcing a police state that dominates everyone equally, is merely endorsing the intollerance that set that cycle in motion in the first place.  You're not breaking a cycle, you are validating it for all time.

Which brings me to your third point - control sets up a totalitarian ruler who vows either to oppress the criminal, or protect the weak.  Either way, Shepard has set him/herself up as the defacto ruler of the universe, with an armada of legion space bugs at his/her command.  Shepard may have benign intentions, but absolute power hasn't had a great history in the Mass Effect universe, and the idea of a nanny state designed to protect us from the dangers of racial diversity (or more specifically, from a vague, speculated threat of one race's future uprising) is more than a little distasteful.

And again, your last point seems completely unrelated to anything that I am saying. If you really need me to explain the difference between being willing to destroy the Reapers (an armada of unrelenting machines gleefully devoted to the decimation of all life in the universe) and thinking that it is reasonable to massacre every member of an allied race simply because your bigotted enemy tells you he thinks that they can't be trusted, then we are talking at such cross purposes I'm not sure you will ever comprehend my position.  (Unless you were just being facetious.)

[Xilizhra]

Your first point seems to be a complete non sequitur. I'm sure there were plenty of choices that the Illusive Man thought were great. So what? It has no bearing upon Mass Effect 3's universal celebration of racial oppression.

The point being that just because a villain likes a choice, it doesn't mean that it's bad.

Your second point misuses the term 'sacrifice' - unless you mean it in the tie-someone-to-an-altar-and-'sacrifice'-them-to-an-angry-god sense. The 'cycle' that is being 'solved' is a murderous, self-justifying circle intended to prevent the 'inevitable' destruction of organics by synthetics. But believing that the only way this racial war can be prevented is by destroying a race, mutating it, or enforcing a police state that dominates everyone equally, is merely endorsing the intollerance that set that cycle in motion in the first place. You're not breaking a cycle, you are validating it for all time.

Unfortunately, the Catalyst controls the Crucible and the Reapers are unstoppable otherwise, so we have to go through the Catalyst's solutions in order to fix our problem. It's a regrettable convergence of circumstances, to be sure, but it can be salvaged.

Which brings me to your third point - control sets up a totalitarian ruler who vows either to oppress the criminal, or protect the weak. Either way, Shepard has set him/herself up as the defacto ruler of the universe, with an armada of legion space bugs at his/her command. Shepard may have benign intentions, but absolute power hasn't had a great history in the Mass Effect universe, and the idea of a nanny state designed to protect us from the dangers of racial diversity (or more specifically, from a vague, speculated threat of one race's future uprising) is more than a little distasteful.

I can only speak for the path I chose (Paragon, curing the genophage), but my Shepard never mentioned synthetics, the Catalyst's problem, or indeed anything whatsoever to do with the Catalyst's philosophy; she was wholly divorced from the Catalyst's ideas and personal issues. I took control of the Reapers to stop them from killing everyone, to repair the damage done to the galaxy by their attacks, and to prevent further wars from breaking out. I'm not going to become the iron-fisted ruler of the galaxy; my Shepard never mentions that either, and you can be a guardian without ruling the people you guard. All I have is power, not the intent to use it poorly.

And again, your last point seems completely unrelated to anything that I am saying. If you really need me to explain the difference between being willing to destroy the Reapers (an armada of unrelenting machines gleefully devoted to the decimation of all life in the universe) and thinking that it is reasonable to massacre every member of an allied race simply because your bigotted enemy tells you he thinks that they can't be trusted, then we are talking at such cross purposes I'm not sure you will ever comprehend my position. (Unless you were just being facetious.)

Oh, I agree with you on the abhorrence of Destroy. I just consider it a little strange that you find controlling the Reapers to be so much more problematic than killing them.

[drayfish]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Drayfish, are you asserting that the non-Reaper synthetics are being controlled in the Control ending?

No.  I didn't mean to imply that Shepard has literal control over the Geth.  If that's what it sounded like, I apologise for being unclear. 

I was more talking about the totalitarian police state created by a Shepard-dominated Reaper armada, which he/she vows will be monitoring the universe, making sure there is no more 'injustice'.  In that universe, no matter how kindly Shepard intends it, he/she will be the voice that dictates all future conflicts.  And given that the Shepard-Reaper was born into this state at the behest of a creature who warned him/her of the inevitability of racial conflict between synthetics and biological life, Shepard will be the nanny keeping everyone in line, saving us all from those untrustworthy 'others'.

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Drayfish, are you asserting that the non-Reaper synthetics are being controlled in the Control ending?

No.  I didn't mean to imply that Shepard has literal control over the Geth.  If that's what it sounded like, I apologise for being unclear. 

I was more talking about the totalitarian police state created by a Shepard-dominated Reaper armada, which he/she vows will be monitoring the universe, making sure there is no more 'injustice'.  In that universe, no matter how kindly Shepard intends it, he/she will be the voice that dictates all future conflicts.  And given that the Shepard-Reaper was born into this state at the behest of a creature who warned him/her of the inevitability of racial conflict between synthetics and biological life, Shepard will be the nanny keeping everyone in line, saving us all from those untrustworthy 'others'.

My Shepard never says anything about ending injustice. Or "others;" that part is pure conjecture.

[MegaSovereign]

And again, your last point seems completely unrelated to anything that I am saying. If you really need me to explain the difference between being willing to destroy the Reapers (an armada of unrelenting machines gleefully devoted to the decimation of all life in the universe) and thinking that it is reasonable to massacre every member of an allied race simply because your bigotted enemy tells you he thinks that they can't be trusted, then we are talking at such cross purposes I'm not sure you will ever comprehend my position. (Unless you were just being facetious.)

The game presents Destroy and all its consequences as something that is not dictated by the Catalyst.

In low EMS scenarios, Destroy targets both organics and synthetics. The Catalyst's "racism" does not affect the Crucible's functions.

[drayfish]

Xilizhra wrote...

Your first point seems to be a complete non sequitur. I'm sure there were plenty of choices that the Illusive Man thought were great. So what? It has no bearing upon Mass Effect 3's universal celebration of racial oppression.

The point being that just because a villain likes a choice, it doesn't mean that it's bad.

Your second point misuses the term 'sacrifice' - unless you mean it in the tie-someone-to-an-altar-and-'sacrifice'-them-to-an-angry-god sense. The 'cycle' that is being 'solved' is a murderous, self-justifying circle intended to prevent the 'inevitable' destruction of organics by synthetics. But believing that the only way this racial war can be prevented is by destroying a race, mutating it, or enforcing a police state that dominates everyone equally, is merely endorsing the intollerance that set that cycle in motion in the first place. You're not breaking a cycle, you are validating it for all time.

Unfortunately, the Catalyst controls the Crucible and the Reapers are unstoppable otherwise, so we have to go through the Catalyst's solutions in order to fix our problem. It's a regrettable convergence of circumstances, to be sure, but it can be salvaged.

Which brings me to your third point - control sets up a totalitarian ruler who vows either to oppress the criminal, or protect the weak. Either way, Shepard has set him/herself up as the defacto ruler of the universe, with an armada of legion space bugs at his/her command. Shepard may have benign intentions, but absolute power hasn't had a great history in the Mass Effect universe, and the idea of a nanny state designed to protect us from the dangers of racial diversity (or more specifically, from a vague, speculated threat of one race's future uprising) is more than a little distasteful.

I can only speak for the path I chose (Paragon, curing the genophage), but my Shepard never mentioned synthetics, the Catalyst's problem, or indeed anything whatsoever to do with the Catalyst's philosophy; she was wholly divorced from the Catalyst's ideas and personal issues. I took control of the Reapers to stop them from killing everyone, to repair the damage done to the galaxy by their attacks, and to prevent further wars from breaking out. I'm not going to become the iron-fisted ruler of the galaxy; my Shepard never mentions that either, and you can be a guardian without ruling the people you guard. All I have is power, not the intent to use it poorly.

And again, your last point seems completely unrelated to anything that I am saying. If you really need me to explain the difference between being willing to destroy the Reapers (an armada of unrelenting machines gleefully devoted to the decimation of all life in the universe) and thinking that it is reasonable to massacre every member of an allied race simply because your bigotted enemy tells you he thinks that they can't be trusted, then we are talking at such cross purposes I'm not sure you will ever comprehend my position. (Unless you were just being facetious.)

Oh, I agree with you on the abhorrence of Destroy. I just consider it a little strange that you find controlling the Reapers to be so much more problematic than killing them.

I find every one of the endings vile.  That's kind of my whole point.

Again, this is not about picking an individual Shepard and having them feel 'comfortable' with the ending.  After all, I have a pure renegade Shepard (who I have not yet - and will never play through ME3) who I already know would jump at some of the choices offered at the end of ME3.  That Shepard is racist, power-mad, and frankly, a complete ass, and he would be giving the Catalyst a high five as he stormed off to (in his mind) save the universe from itself.

What I am talking about is the thematic statement of the entire game - the message that the narrative (not individual Shepards), is communicating.  And at the macro level, this story has some horrifying and hopeless things to say about the impossibility of racial diversity.  On that level, the game clearly states that different races cannot live together in peace unless they are forced to against their will - and Shepard (whatever she chooses) merely gets to prove how true that hateful belief is.

[Xilizhra]

What I am talking about is the thematic statement of the entire game - the message that the narrative (not individual Shepards), is communicating. And at the macro level, this story has some horrifying and hopeless things to say about the impossibility of racial diversity. On that level, the game clearly states that different races cannot live together in peace unless they are forced to against their will - and Shepard (whatever she chooses) merely gets to prove how true that hateful belief is.

I just... do not see this unless you're taking a deliberately pessimistic view of the narrative, or arguably choosing Destroy. It has nothing to do with whether or not different races can live in peace; all it has is ways to stop the Reapers and the future consequences thereof. Even Synthesis doesn't destroy individuality, it just gives the galaxy a technological boost.

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...
Thank you for the gently patronising lecture, I'm sure - but my comments stand.

Indeed, you seem to have misunderstood the way that narrative functions - perhaps distracted by the illusion of player agency that the game evokes.  As I said, I am criticising the game[/i] and it's subtext, not your Shepard's actions within it, or how you choose to reason those actions away (because those details are, of course, fluid).  Shepard is but one character within a larger text - and it is the text that articulates its theme around her.

Well, if you don't mind people missing your point the way Xil did, that's your business. (I knew what you were getting at because I've read your stuff before.) I'm just pointing out that your rhetoric invites such misinterpretation.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
There's no such "message" for Shepard. You go to war with the Crucible you have, not the Crucible you wish you had.

Yeah, but Bioware really ignores the deathcamp problem they set up. It's one thing to have players getting along with someone that's been set up as an antagonist - even a vile antagonist - and another to have the player team up with the villans that have actual deathcamps. 

There's a moral event horizon that the reapers shot so far past that it's impossible not to have a significant base of your players just find the endings offensive.