692 réponses à ce sujet

[daaaav]

EntropicAngel wrote...




Haha. Yes. No gymnastics here.

1. And you don't know that eating anything other than [whatever the latest thing is] is bad for you? We all know fast food is bad for us. But there are benefits that each person must weigh against the drawbacks. Same as this solution.

2. "Foreshadow" doesn't mean anything--especially since Bioware traditionally ignores their epilogue screens.

3. I don't deny it's changing something. I DO deny, however, that it was the same thing as eugenics, a buzzword used without thought.


I don't divorce the solutions from the side effects. I give focus to the solution while iakus is giving focus to the side effects.

1.) I honestly don't know what you mean... Yes, I know that force feeding someone too many hamburgers will make them fat... ergo, if I can help it, I will not force someone to eat too many hamburgers and will seek alternatives.

The alternatives... 

2.) The player is not allowed to insert their own motivations into choosing control because Shepard already has motivations and intentions. I.e. I cannot head cannon flying all the Reapers into the Sun because Shepard intends to do something else. Well I could before I saw the epilogue slides...

3.) Eugenics is indeed a buzzword. I'm not sure that we have a word to describe synthesis since it is not a coherent concept.

You can't focus on the solutions without considering the above. It is true that Shepard has no choice but to choose but the solutions are all horrible and that is an objective reason why the endings made people feel bad. Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC).

[LinksOcarina]

daaaav wrote...

1.) I honestly don't know what you mean... Yes, I know that force feeding someone too many hamburgers will make them fat... ergo, if I can help it, I will not force someone to eat too many hamburgers and will seek alternatives.

The alternatives... 

2.) The player is not allowed to insert their own motivations into choosing control because Shepard already has motivations and intentions. I.e. I cannot head cannon flying all the Reapers into the Sun because Shepard intends to do something else. Well I could before I saw the epilogue slides...

3.) Eugenics is indeed a buzzword. I'm not sure that we have a word to describe synthesis since it is not a coherent concept.

You can't focus on the solutions without considering the above. It is true that Shepard has no choice but to choose but the solutions are all horrible and that is an objective reason why the endings made people feel bad. Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC).

Question, are the decisions horrible by our standards, or Shepards? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:24 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LinksOcarina wrote...

daaaav wrote...

1.) I honestly don't know what you mean... Yes, I know that force feeding someone too many hamburgers will make them fat... ergo, if I can help it, I will not force someone to eat too many hamburgers and will seek alternatives.

The alternatives... 

2.) The player is not allowed to insert their own motivations into choosing control because Shepard already has motivations and intentions. I.e. I cannot head cannon flying all the Reapers into the Sun because Shepard intends to do something else. Well I could before I saw the epilogue slides...

3.) Eugenics is indeed a buzzword. I'm not sure that we have a word to describe synthesis since it is not a coherent concept.

You can't focus on the solutions without considering the above. It is true that Shepard has no choice but to choose but the solutions are all horrible and that is an objective reason why the endings made people feel bad. Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC).

Question, are the decisions horrible by our standards, or Shepards? 

I'd say that's largely dependent on what kind of Shepard you're playing. For the stereotypical Paragon who is probably used to getting through most situations without a scratch, the endings are more renegade in scope/style.

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Let me help you out entropic.

Eugenics is a social philosophy (i.e, bull**** science) that was used to promote human improvement via genetics. The basis is simple; we want desirable traits, vs undesirable ones.  

It is basically masked racism that was used to both enforce and promote laws and ideals that would argue what is and isen't "desirable". In the context of this entire discussion, it is being misused through context. Copying and pasting from wikipedia to interpret meaning from how eugenics was used and founded, is frankly a sophmore mistake. To say synthesis is eugenics is like saying chemistry is magic, it simply doesn't work because they are contextually different, let alone incompatible based on their philosophy. 

A more appropriate term would be technological determinism, since it is using technology to drive the development and culture of the world, although it is problematic as a definition as well, but is worth discussing. Eugenics, however, is not. 

Well, the concept of eugenics predates gene therapies as we understand them.  And Synthesis is basically magic anyway...

But given what Synthesis is set out to accomplish it is arguably racist...dung.

It's saying that organics are incapable of solving their own probelms.  That they are physically or mentally lacking whatever it takes to develop peace between themselves and synthetics.

It's like saying  ::racial group 1:: and ::racial group 2:: are inferior species who's primitive and violent tendancies will eventually wipe each other out.  So, for their own good, we'll alter their genetic makeup and make them "better people"

[txgoldrush]

iakus wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Just because Arrival had complaints doesn't make it less of a valid comparison.

And really, the only difference between Virmire and the end of ME3 is the scope...that's it. Otherwise its thematically the same.

Nevermind that the only difference between the Signal Tracking AI and the Catalyst is once again, scope. They are thematically similar otherwise.

Arrival "only" affected a few hundred thousand people.  And some people were already unhappy with it.

The point you seem to be missing is scope is a factor.  Not everyone subscibes to "one death is a tragedy, a milion is a statistic"  Death is death.  And more death is more death.  At some point, it simply becomes too much.   As Mordin says "Hard to see big picture behind pile of corpses"

However, the scope in ME3 is much larger, you are not taking this into account. The scope of Shepard actions gets larger as the series goes on, and as ME3 goes on.

[daaaav]

EntropicAngel wrote...



That's nonsense. These are actions with benefits and drawbacks. None is intentionally evil. None is intentionally good, for that matter. They're only possible solutions. Emotion doesn't belong, unless you're talking about personal opinion.

There you go. For right or wrong, this is the reason for the backlash.

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Let me help you out entropic.

Eugenics is a social philosophy (i.e, bull**** science) that was used to promote human improvement via genetics. The basis is simple; we want desirable traits, vs undesirable ones.  

It is basically masked racism that was used to both enforce and promote laws and ideals that would argue what is and isen't "desirable". In the context of this entire discussion, it is being misused through context. Copying and pasting from wikipedia to interpret meaning from how eugenics was used and founded, is frankly a sophmore mistake. To say synthesis is eugenics is like saying chemistry is magic, it simply doesn't work because they are contextually different, let alone incompatible based on their philosophy. 

A more appropriate term would be technological determinism, since it is using technology to drive the development and culture of the world, although it is problematic as a definition as well, but is worth discussing. Eugenics, however, is not. 

Well, the concept of eugenics predates gene therapies as we understand them.  And Synthesis is basically magic anyway...

But given what Synthesis is set out to accomplish it is arguably racist...dung.

It's saying that organics are incapable of solving their own probelms.  That they are physically or mentally lacking whatever it takes to develop peace between themselves and synthetics.

It's like saying  ::racial group 1:: and ::racial group 2:: are inferior species who's primitive and violent tendancies will eventually wipe each other out.  So, for their own good, we'll alter their genetic makeup and make them "better people"

So, you acknowledge that synthetics are racist, ergo, an actual race and human enough to comprehend such an idea?

See, thats the problem, you can argue its racism, but is it really racism when the assumptions are based on logic and possibly a false representation by something that is devoid of human emotion? 

This, by the way, is a better discussion than directly saying the endings are forced eugenics or whatever you referred it too. At least now you can get out of semantics and make a case for it.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:38 .

[LinksOcarina]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Question, are the decisions horrible by our standards, or Shepards? 

I'd say that's largely dependent on what kind of Shepard you're playing. For the stereotypical Paragon who is probably used to getting through most situations without a scratch, the endings are more renegade in scope/style.

Fair point, but then another important question needs to be asked; whose standards matter more in this context?

We are getting a bit meta here, but bear with me there is a point. 

[daaaav]

EntropicAngel wrote...


1. I'm saying that there are benefits as well as drawbacks. BOTH must be considered, not just, "people will die? Noooooooooooooo!"

2. As I mentioned, at least for DA, Bioware has said that the epilogues are not canon. I wouldn't be surprised if that remains true for ME and thus, we know no more than, "New Shepard-Reaper controls the Reapers." We don't know for certain that it results in a police state.

3. Iakus actually gave a phrase: forced gene therapy. It's a better description.

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the drawbacks, I'm saying the drawbacks aren't the solutions themselves. They're side effects (take a look at a medicine bottle sometime) or outright speculation.


And: "Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC)."

Hmm, hmm, hmm! Indeed. I certainly don't disagree.

What are we arguing about? You cannot absolve Shepards concience and legacy by ignoring the side effects of his choice. Like a medecine bottle, they are known effects, not unforeseen circumstances and not idle speculation. I don't know where Bioware said that the epilogue slides were not cannon but if they are indeed not cannon then we may as well head cannon the whole damn series or embrace IT.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LinksOcarina wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Question, are the decisions horrible by our standards, or Shepards? 

I'd say that's largely dependent on what kind of Shepard you're playing. For the stereotypical Paragon who is probably used to getting through most situations without a scratch, the endings are more renegade in scope/style.

Fair point, but then another important question needs to be asked; whose standards matter more in this context?

We are getting a bit meta here, but bear with me there is a point. 

Probably the player who paid for the game and was expecting entertainment.

Now me personally? I always preferred Renegade and thought ME was a bit too nice to the paragons. But I can easily see how a Paragon player wouldn't be too happy with the content/context of the ending decisions, especially for those players who like perfect outcomes (No suicide mission deaths, uniting Geth/Quarians).

[LinksOcarina]

daaaav wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...


1. I'm saying that there are benefits as well as drawbacks. BOTH must be considered, not just, "people will die? Noooooooooooooo!"

2. As I mentioned, at least for DA, Bioware has said that the epilogues are not canon. I wouldn't be surprised if that remains true for ME and thus, we know no more than, "New Shepard-Reaper controls the Reapers." We don't know for certain that it results in a police state.

3. Iakus actually gave a phrase: forced gene therapy. It's a better description.

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider the drawbacks, I'm saying the drawbacks aren't the solutions themselves. They're side effects (take a look at a medicine bottle sometime) or outright speculation.


And: "Players were not desirous of an intellectual thought experiment but rather  a cathartic resolution to the things that were important to them - the characters. (somewhat fixed by the EC)."

Hmm, hmm, hmm! Indeed. I certainly don't disagree.

What are we arguing about? You cannot absolve Shepards concience and legacy by ignoring the side effects of his choice. Like a medecine bottle, they are known effects, not unforeseen circumstances and not idle speculation. I don't know where Bioware said that the epilogue slides were not cannon but if they are indeed not cannon then we may as well head cannon the whole damn series or embrace IT.

But, you can absolve it because the outcomes of the choice says otherwise. We know the effects, but we always neglect the biggest bit of all the entire coda for the universe. Shepard is unanimously praised for it in all four endings for the actions that are taken, regardless of the negatives that we see. 

By your own logic, the endings themselves as being positive are non-objectionable because we see the ramifications of the actions of Shepard, and the choice Shepard makes. Shepard's own conscience is clear when he makes that choice to begin with. 

What people have a problem with is interpretation, which is wholly subjective and detached from the experience as a whole. My question regarding who actually objects to the endings, the player or the character, is where this comes in. As a player we can find problems, discuss, dissect, and basically do what were doing now, but it doesn't make anything about it objective other than the fact that they exist. If it's Shepard, one decision, including refusing, was objectively sound enough for Shepard to make based on Shepard's morality.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 12 janvier 2014 - 12:47 .

[AresKeith]

EntropicAngel wrote...

iakus wrote...

 And Synthesis is basically magic anyway...

I'm sure one could create a version of Synthesis that wasn't "magic" with only a little worth. A little nuclear decay or perhaps bombardment that changes some of the body's elements.

Probably would've been better than what Bioware did 

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The reason you can't say, "hold the Geth" is because in real life, everything (including diet, and including everything in a diet) has drawbacks. Your meat without cheese is still having effects on your body that aren't good. The grease is still there. yada yada. The point is, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Not in life, and especially not when art imitates life.

And again, one burger generally isn't lethal.  But the Crucible put ground glass inthis one.  It's a disproportionate response.

Do you mean the epilogue? Do you mean the vague terms? By the same notion, the US President leads a "police state." The Secretary-General of the U.N. "leads" a police state. That's too vague to call a police state.

So when does the galaxy get to recall-vote the Shepalyst out of office?

I don't agree. The alteration is in no way as severe as eugenics is intended to be. There's still extensive diversity.

It's exactly what eugenics is intended to be.  Albiet using space magic rather than breeding.  Tinkering with the genetic code of humanity (or, all life in the galaxy in this case) in order to "improve" it.  "Final stage of evolution" remember?

I'm glad you chose it instead of genocide, because I was prepared to go to Miriam-Webster for that one before I realized you weren't using genocide. I disagree on both. They're terms that refer to specific ideals (and history), that also provoke an emotional response. They're charged. They don't belong.

"Hoolocaust" is a term far, far older than the 20th century.  It is a "sacrifice" specifically a burnt offering.  If you're going to insist the death of all synthetic life in the galaxy is a "sacrifice" that has to be made to destroy the Reapers, that makes it an all the more appropriate term.

That's nonsense. These are actions with benefits and drawbacks. None is intentionally evil. None is intentionally good, for that matter. They're only possible solutions. Emotion doesn't belong, unless you're talking about personal opinion.

You hire a guy to fix your furnace, and he  burns down your house as a consequence (but now your furnace works), are you going to be that philosophical about it?

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

Arrival "only" affected a few hundred thousand people.  And some people were already unhappy with it.

So if we got choice in next ME where you would have to decide between decimating of whole Local group of galaxies and complete destruction of one of three major galaxies here, Destroy would sudenly become OK same as Virmire, Destiny Ascencion and Arrival because of bigger scale of this decision?

Or there is some line when "only one human, ship, colony, system" become "real" atrocity?

[LinksOcarina]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Question, are the decisions horrible by our standards, or Shepards? 

I'd say that's largely dependent on what kind of Shepard you're playing. For the stereotypical Paragon who is probably used to getting through most situations without a scratch, the endings are more renegade in scope/style.

Fair point, but then another important question needs to be asked; whose standards matter more in this context?

We are getting a bit meta here, but bear with me there is a point. 

Probably the player who paid for the game and was expecting entertainment.

Now me personally? I always preferred Renegade and thought ME was a bit too nice to the paragons. But I can easily see how a Paragon player wouldn't be too happy with the content/context of the ending decisions, especially for those players who like perfect outcomes (No suicide mission deaths, uniting Geth/Quarians).

What I wrote to dave ties into this too. Because we detach ourselves, you are absolutly right that the player who paid for the game is the most important barometer on how much they enjoyed the game. But because we all have different standards, ideologies, backgrounds, beliefs, and what have you, it is a standard in flux. Basically, our own, subjective tastes are what matters, but we shouldn't kid ourselves and say they are objective in any sense of the word. 

As an aside, as a primary paragon player, I still found Destroy to be the worst ending of the lot, but I did consider it in the shoes of Shepard. I also was never afraid to go mixed, be both paragon and renegade, which honestly, makes the game better in my own opinion. As for perfect outcomes, if they come, they come, there is little I can do to change that other than reload the save. 

[daaaav]

EntropicAngel wrote...



Are you reading the parts of my comments where I say I'm not ignoring the side effects?

I'm saying that you can't simply encapsulate each choice as "holocaust/police state/eugenics." There's more to it than that. And, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

In hindsight, perhaps you can take ego and emotion out of the equation and look at the solutions in a purely analytical way. That certainly wasn't possible at the time I had to make said choice and I would say that the above characterisation was more than justified.

 

[Iakus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So, you acknowledge that synthetics are racist, ergo, an actual race and human enough to comprehend such an idea?

See, thats the problem, you can argue its racism, but is it really racism when the assumptions are based on logic and possibly a false representation by something that is devoid of human emotion? 

This, by the way, is a better discussion than directly saying the endings are forced eugenics or whatever you referred it too. At least now you can get out of semantics and make a case for it.

Funny thing.  Talking to Legion in ME2, you see the geth as acknowledging organic minds as fundamentally different for their own, but being fine with it, as long as they don't impose themselves on the geth.

This is before they got the Pinnochio complex, of course.

Point being, there was a time in Mass Effect when being different was okay, even by those who were "devoid of human emotion"   

[Iakus]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'm saying that you can't simply encapsulate each choice as "holocaust/police state/eugenics." There's more to it than that. And, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

But the state of the cake you get is important

[LinksOcarina]

iakus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So, you acknowledge that synthetics are racist, ergo, an actual race and human enough to comprehend such an idea?

See, thats the problem, you can argue its racism, but is it really racism when the assumptions are based on logic and possibly a false representation by something that is devoid of human emotion? 

This, by the way, is a better discussion than directly saying the endings are forced eugenics or whatever you referred it too. At least now you can get out of semantics and make a case for it.

Funny thing.  Talking to Legion in ME2, you see the geth as acknowledging organic minds as fundamentally different for their own, but being fine with it, as long as they don't impose themselves on the geth.

This is before they got the Pinnochio complex, of course.

Point being, there was a time in Mass Effect when being different was okay, even by those who were "devoid of human emotion"   

An acknowledgement that there is an understanding of difference is a good start, I grant you that. Do they have context of what those differences are?

That is the more important question. The reason they are devoid of human emotion is because of a lack of empathy, something synthetics in Mass Effect didn't comprehend until the third game itself. It's like a baby almost, it can act out on instict and acknowledges differences in people, but may not understand what that really means without empathy or context to it.

I would argue that their progression in Mass Effect 3 was in effect, "growing up" to come to terms with empathy. EDI is actually emblematic of this, depending on how you speak to her. And while we have some cases of this, it would also be unwise to paint the same broad stroke over the Catalyst either.