1. A positive consequence is something that can occur from myself completing what I set out to do and holding a certain level of criteria to accomplish as part of my goal. If all or most are accomplished, then you're likely going to have a lot more positive consequences benefiting. In this case, I have destroyed the Reapers and secured myself, the people I care about, and the galaxy at large from that threat. As for the rightness of an action, I'm not a person who gives points for good intentions. If a plan fails, and the goal isn't accomplished, it doesn't matter what the intent was. It failed. But to get to what I mean by my statement is that I mean that if my goals are accomplished and what I consider to be a beneficial outcome is achieved, it matters not how I reach that goal. If the action advances my agenda, no action is off the table.
Notice that I said 'expected consequences' in my previous post, not 'intentions.' It's very common for the most carefully constructed utilitarian calculations to fail in reality because of some unforeseen mishap, while incredibly irrational decision-making processes often result in great outcomes by dumb luck (anyone who's played any poker knows exactly what I'm talking about). This is exactly why even a lot of the most hard-core consequentialists don't hold that results are the only thing that matters; they hold that what matters is what we have good reason to believe about what the results of a given action will be. But enough of this.
2. After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that the Singularity is really only an aspect of one ending in particular, that being Synthesis. Otherwise, the basic theme behind the ending is more on to inevitable conflict between Organics vs Synthetics, or a chaos vs. order idea. One of the possibilities for solving this problem is to induce a tech singularity, but I wouldn't say that it is the main theme behind it. That said, I can understand narratively the purpose behind the Geth and EDI being killed, but it is arbitrary how they are suddenly at the focus of the decision as the primary consequence of invoking Destroy. As I see it, it was rather thinly veiled as a means to discourage people from automatically choosing to destroy.
We're probably talking past each other a bit here. By 'singularity,' I mean the hypothesis that the existence of an AI capable of recursive self-improvement would constitute some kind of intellectual 'event-horizon'; this hypothesis is supposed to underwrite ME's idea of organic/synthetic conflict. It's the explanation of that conflict, not the solution to it. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that synthetic organic conflict is the conceit of the ending, not just synthesis (after all, we get the spiel from the catalyst even if our EMS isn't even high enough to access the synthesis ending). Destroy kills synthetics because that's how it's supposed to solve the conflict. If you were choosing hostages to discourage people from making the choice, it's not a good idea to pick the group that has a roughly 1/3 chance of not even being around to hold hostage.
I do understand the idea behind the game rewarding 'good' actions, and I completely disagree with it. Tying into my last comment (which was not intended as an insult but a real dismissal of the philosophy that the 'moral constitution of an action' outweighs any practical application or positive benefits. I don't agree with the philosophy that 'moral integrity' trumps positives (as well as possibly the only chance to win the war).
It's well and good for you to have that moral philosophy, but the question is, what implications should this have for the game? The most sensible thing, it seems to me, is that the game should try to remain a bit more neutral on whether or not 'moral integrity' is of any real value. What it should not do is to treat your personal moral philosophy as if its truth should be obvious to any rational person; it isn't.
3. The harsh lesson that I'm talking about is how you're not always going to get a golden option or a third-way out of a problem. You're not always able to be the 'golden hero who spears evil with his lance of almighty moral righteousness and good'. It's a lesson that nothing is clear-cut and there isn't always a perfect answer, and there is no black and white morality to dance with. It ties into the second paragraph a bit, going by how I'm describing it and how you summarized the ME trilogies knack for making the upper-left dialogue choice the golden option nine times out of ten.
What I'm arguing is that the supposedly harsh moral lesson of the ending
just isn't there. Outside of Shepard's death, synthesis is supposed to be the 'third way out.' Heck, it even brings back Keiji from the dead. Not exactly harsh moralizing about the cruel realities of war.
4. Read what I posted for 2. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack. An insult, yes, but not one aimed towards anyone, but towards a particular chain of thought I fine to be rather disgusting and disturbing. It's meant to tell people that you have to accept things as they are, not complain about them or what you want them to be. It's the hand you're dealt, so nut up and deal, or shut up and leave (not actually to you or anyone in particular, at least not that I'd say for fear of invoking a warning or ban).
It seemed pretty obvious to me that it was directed towards specific posters. But regardless, I don't see any value in continuing this particular part of the conversation any further.
Retour en haut
