585 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

The definition is fine, actually, and there's more to Mass Effect's moral dilemmas than it being a "war story".

No, because it means every single decision is about sacrificing something. That's the problem with it. "Conflict story" if you prefer, you can break it down more if you wish and not every single event fits that but I don't think there's much to be gained by having to specify every detail.

[Reorte]

Wow.
 
I have nothing further to add.

That doesn't do much to change my general view. I'd go as far as to say that it's doing what you're saying I'm doing.

The point is that you can apply those definitions very widely, and the "it's all about sacrifice" argument seems to be doing just that. Langauge is often an imprecise thing so there are often terms that you can see a little bit of in a lot of things, even where it's insignificant. When you start to use them that widely they cease to be useful - i.e. every difficuly decision becomes about sacrificing something, first and foremost.

[Obadiah]

Too wide a definition to be particularly useful, especially when discussing ideas like it being a theme above it being a war story anyway.

I thought you were splitting hairs earlier when drawing a distinction between a theme of war and/or sacrifice, because, just in general, war is usually the setting for a story with a theme, not THE theme. Even if war was a theme, war and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive.

And the definition given here is not really that broad. It covers many acts in general, but since ME 3 is a war story, those are the acts that it is concerned with.

[dreamgazer]

That puts it into "too wide a definition to be meaningful", at least when considering whether it's a theme or not. By that definition every single decision ever made is about sacrifice to some degree.

 

I don't really agree, because Mass Effect deals in heftier dilemmas, so it's more about personal and existential sacrifice than throwaway decisions.  

 

Those pieces of you that you're willing and forced to surrender in order to move forward, even if it's eventually to a similar place, and realizing that there aren't detours.

[Reorte]

I thought you were splitting hairs earlier when drawing a distinction between a theme of war and/or sacrifice, because, just in general, war is usually the setting for a story with a theme, not THE theme. Even if war was a theme, war and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive.

And the definition given here is not really that broad. It covers many acts in general, but since ME 3 is a war story, those are the acts that it is concerned with.

The problem I have with it is that the definition many people seem to be using means that it's inevitable in such a setting, which means that it's hardly worth claiming it. On the other hand I was using a much narrower definition (the messiahnic sort of sacrifice). Good to be clear on what everyone actually meant so at least we're not arguing about different things.

If you treat the definition as not completely all-encompasing but where those things are clearly a major part of whatever you're discussing then I agree, but that leaves it in on the "inevitable part of it" side.

[Reorte]

I don't really agree, because Mass Effect deals in heftier dilemmas, so it's more about personal and existential sacrifice than throwaway decisions.

That's just a matter of scale. Perhaps Shepard sacrificed her fish in order to get back to Afterlife for another drink a little faster
 

Those pieces of you that you're willing and forced to surrender in order to move forward, even if it's eventually to a similar place, and realizing that there aren't detours.

If you're forced, i.e. don't have any choice in the matter, then it isn't sacrifice. It's sh1t's happened. Whatever you lose has been taken away from you rather than given away.

[General TSAR]

Destruction of Reapers, Geth, and Sexbot.

 

Sounds like a good and just ending. 

[dreamgazer]

If you're forced, i.e. don't have any choice in the matter, then it isn't sacrifice. It's sh1t's happened. Whatever you lose has been taken away from you rather than given away.

 

Wait, so you think you don't make sacrifices in forced situations? 

[Reorte]

Wait, so you think you don't make sacrifices in forced situations?

A forced situation is one where you don't have any choice. You've not sacrificed your money if you've been robbed, you've had it taken from you with no alternative. If you saw the robbers coming and flung your wallet in one direction and took off in the other then you have sacrificed it.

[dreamgazer]

A forced situation is one where you don't have any choice.

No, a forced situation is where you have limited choices, and sacrifices made under those circumstances are even more significant.

Not really touching your flawed wallet analogy.

[Iakus]

The definition is fine, actually, and there's more to Mass Effect's moral dilemmas than it being a "war story".

Does this mean I get to call the death of synthetics in the Red ending a "holocaust" again?

 

I mean, it's a completely accurate definition...

[Reorte]

No, a forced situation is where you have limited choices, and sacrifices made under those circumstances are even more significant.

The more forced a situation is the less choice you've got, until it's fully forced and you've no choice. Less forcing probably means more options that involve giving less away. Why are sacrifices made under more forced circumstances even more significant? Beyond "why on earth did you do that when you didn't have to?" of course.

The most significant sacrifice is when you give up something that'll make a difference to others but you have no need or pressure to give it up.

Not really touching your flawed wallet analogy.

The wallet example is neither flawed nor an analogy.

[dreamgazer]

Does this mean I get to call the death of synthetics in the Red ending a "holocaust" again?
 
I mean, it's a completely accurate definition...

You can do whatever you want, despite it being inaccurate.

[Reorte]

It's late, I've been very p1ssed off of late, and I apolgise unreservedly for general idiot comments from earlier.

[dreamgazer]

The more forced a situation is the less choice you've got, until it's fully forced and you've no choice.

Then it's not a decision, and thus doesn't apply. (And yes, we had three choices in ME3's ending, four in the EC).
 

Why are sacrifices made under more forced circumstances even more significant? Beyond "why on earth did you do that when you didn't have to?" of course.

Because of the stakes of the situation, operating under pressure and critically evaluating the right course of action to make an "impossible" scenario possible.
 

The most significant sacrifice is when you give up something that'll make a difference to others but you have no need or pressure to give it up.

I strongly disagree. The sacrifices people make under pressure with their time, their integrity, and their bodily condition are vastly more significant, due to the stakes and the strain they're under to make the right choices with what they're giving up.
 

The wallet example is neither flawed nor an analogy.

Man, you want me to take the wallet-tossing thing as a serious example?

[Reorte]

I strongly disagree. The sacrifices people make under pressure with their time, their integrity, and their bodily condition are vastly more significant, due to the stakes and the strain they're under to make the right choices with what they're giving up.

That makes them more of a strain but why more significant? They make better drama though. Very high stakes choices with no clear good answer are possibly more likely to occur in such situations and whilst those examples are more significant it's the high stakes part that matters there, not the circumstance under which it arrives.

If you've got to make a decision that'll have a huge effect on huge numbers of people is it more significant if you're doing it under immediate stress and discomfort, with no time to consider, or sitting comfortably and with plenty of time to mull it over? The significance is the same even though the difficulty and cricumstances are very different.

Man, you want me to take the wallet-tossing thing as a serious example?

Yes - it's a simple example of the principles, although we've moved on since you've since said that by forced you only mean mostly forced.

[dreamgazer]

That makes them more of a strain but why more significant? They make better drama though.

Because of the stakes of the situation. What would happen if they didn't make that sacrifice in the forced situation?

Yes - it's a simple example of the principles, although we've moved on since you've since said that by forced you only mean mostly forced.

No, I mean forced in general. If you're forced to a point where there's literally no other alternatives, then it's not a choice.
It's a flawed example of these principles that, frankly, is easier to take as a figurative analogy. An alternate, more accurate version from my perspective would have someone (preferably with physical training or a concealed weapon) sacrificing their body/well-being to stop the burglary.

[Obadiah]

The problem I have with it is that the definition many people seem to be using means that it's inevitable in such a setting, which means that it's hardly worth claiming it. On the other hand I was using a much narrower definition (the messiahnic sort of sacrifice). Good to be clear on what everyone actually meant so at least we're not arguing about different things.

If you treat the definition as not completely all-encompasing but where those things are clearly a major part of whatever you're discussing then I agree, but that leaves it in on the "inevitable part of it" side.

The more narrow definition of sacrifice, related to space-Jesus, was not something I accepted as a theme for very long when trying to determine a theme for Mass Effect. I'm pretty sure someone brought it up related space-Jusus, but very quickly, when reviewing the game, it became obvious that a much greater definition of sacrifice was at play.

I'd just like to add, to me Shepard is not space Jesus because he was killed/scrificed at the end for the greater good, its because he absolved the galaxy of the responsiblity, some might call it "the great sin", of making the choice.

It's true that in war stories, mostly heroic ones, the act of a sacrifice is inevitably a plot point. But in ME3 it doesn't just happen, it happens and keeps happening, and they talk about it repeatedly. Its not simply one person accepting a death sentence for others or some greater goal like Mordin, Thane (ok... debatable), Legion, Victus, Samara, or Shepard, it's also people being explicity sacrificed (practically given a death sentence) by others - Hacket's conversation about the fleet's retreat, the Council using Earth to buy time for themselves, Garrus' explicit ruthless calculus and ongoing developments, Shepard and Aralakh compnay, TIM's "plan", the Reaper's cycle, one could go on (*scratches head for a minute* or maybe not).

War stories don't have to have this many plot points that revolve around sacrifice - there's patriotism, tactics, ruthlessness, cowardice, betrayal, random meaninglesss death, inhumanity, defeat, triumph, (one really could go on) much of which is in there in ME3, but not the way sacrifice is.

I guess I'll say this as well about the discussion of themes in Mass Effect - I think it's interesting, but mostly academic. I didn't hear anything about how good themes were when people were playing ME1 and ME2, it seems like only after they could beat it to death as a criticism of the ME3 ending that it came up.

[Iakus]

You can do whatever you want, despite it being inaccurate.

It's as accurate as your definition of sacrifice...

[dreamgazer]

It's as accurate as your definition of sacrifice...

Can't say I personally agree, given that word's connotation and the frequent appearance of the word "slaughter" in applicable definitions.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

They didn't discover Ilos because of a fluke:  all the information on it was destroyed in the initial attack, and tehy went dark afterwards:  And most of them ended up dying anyway while hiding from the Reapers.

And the Crucible in our cycle?

The Reapers cannot monitor everyone. It's just not feasible. That alone allows plenty of people to go about with their lives freely, if not most of them.
 

And Micro or macro, the people of the galaxy are not free.

 
Only anarchy is truly free. All government requires subversion of some freedoms and obedience to the law.
 
The new Catalyst only states the intention to rule if Shepard was Renegade. If Paragon, they state the intention to serve and protect, making them sound more like Spectres than government, which would really only solidify the government(s) that the people have already chosen for themselves. As for ReneControl, that's probably not the case. However, it's entirely possible the Reapers will be good leaders. Democracy is not the only system of government that has produced positive results, no matter how much the western world wants you to believe it.

 

It's also possible that I look at the endings with a critical eye, and see very unpleasant implications in them

 
Dude, no, you're wrong. You're just wrong. Your claims are hyperbole to start off with (nobody is free in Control??) and then is flat-out refuted by what is clearly shown: NPCs of note doing in Control what they would do without the existence of Reapers anyway.
 
Your eye is critical alright... critical of the biased variety, not the objective one (hence the windmill-tilting and negative headcanon).
 
 

What like harvesting species and turning them into Reapers is "preserving life"?

 

Sorry, I am not so easily distracted away from the point by misdirection.

For anyone in a position of power, response to "a threat to the many" is just the logical thing to do. Would you assert differently?

Only problem I see is that the Reapers are scary. Hysteria clouds reason.
 

Plus he places all the blame for the situation on organics for daring to try and improve their lives with synthetics.

 
No, he blames organics for routinely seeking to control synthetics thus driving them to rebellion, an event which has taken place so many times in Mass Effect that it is pretty much a natural law of the setting long before the Catalyst ever opened its mouth. You are shooting the messenger.
 
 

And when you look at all three endings together, there's a common theme:  Organics and synthetics cannot coexist peacefully.  You have to either remove one of them (Destroy)  Allow one to dominate the other (Control)  or change them all into some third faction (Synthesis), changing them into something else.  My words were harsh.  But they were not innacurate.

 
None of that backs up your claim that picking the Green option means you must find organic life unworthy. Try to keep track of your arguments.

As for the theme you mentioned, I agree. It's there. However, it has pretty much been there before the Catalyst, whether people realized it or not. Organics have always tried to control their creations, and if their creation evolved too far beyond their control, they paid the price.

Control ending could actually be reasonably seen as a counterexample showing peaceful coexistence of both parties. However, you've disqualified it on account of the synthetic side dominating the equation. In doing so you've basically also disqualified Rannoch peace, since that can take place if and only if the geth are upgraded to surpass the quarians' military strength. What's left to dispute him?

[ImaginaryMatter]

The more narrow definition of sacrifice, related to space-Jesus, was not something I accepted as a theme for very long when trying to determine a theme for Mass Effect. I'm pretty sure someone brought it up related space-Jusus, but very quickly, when reviewing the game, it became obvious that a much greater definition of sacrifice was at play.

I'd just like to add, to me Shepard is not space Jesus because he was killed/scrificed at the end for the greater good, its because he absolved the galaxy of the responsiblity, some might call it "the great sin", of making the choice.

It's true that in war stories, mostly heroic ones, the act of a sacrifice is inevitably a plot point. But in ME3 it doesn't just happen, it happens and keeps happening, and they talk about it repeatedly. Its not simply one person accepting a death sentence for others or some greater goal like Mordin, Thane (ok... debatable), Legion, Victus, Samara, or Shepard, it's also people being explicity sacrificed (practically given a death sentence) by others - Hacket's conversation about the fleet's retreat, the Council using Earth to buy time for themselves, Garrus' explicit ruthless calculus and ongoing developments, Shepard and Aralakh compnay, TIM's "plan", the Reaper's cycle, one could go on (*scratches head for a minute* or maybe not).

War stories don't have to have this many plot points that revolve around sacrifice - there's patriotism, tactics, ruthlessness, cowardice, betrayal, random meaninglesss death, inhumanity, defeat, triumph, (one really could go on) much of which is in there in ME3, but not the way sacrifice is.

I guess I'll say this as well about the discussion of themes in Mass Effect - I think it's interesting, but mostly academic. I didn't hear anything about how good themes were when people were playing ME1 and ME2, it seems like only after they could beat it to death as a criticism of the ME3 ending that it came up.

 

Just having a story repeatedly bring up sacrifice doesn't necessarily make it a thematic element. Is the Mass Effect series saying anything about sacrifice? Is 'sacrifice' represented ludically?

[Iakus]

And the Crucible in our cycle?

The Reapers cannot monitor everyone. It's just not feasible. That alone allows plenty of people to go about with their lives freely, if not most of them.
 

Before or after an indoctrinated TIM ratted the Crucible out?

 

In fact I'd say indoctrination is a pretty good way to keep tabs on people.  Of course, our own history has demonstrated you don't need to spy on every single citizen to dominate a population.

 

 

 

Only anarchy is truly free. All government requires subversion of some freedoms and obedience to the law.

The new Catalyst only states the intention to rule if Shepard was Renegade. If Paragon, they state the intention to serve and protect, making them sound more like Spectres than government, which would really only solidify the government(s) that the people have already chosen for themselves. As for ReneControl, that's probably not the case. However, it's entirely possible the Reapers will be good leaders. Democracy is not the only system of government that has produced positive results, no matter how much the western world wants you to believe it.

 Most governments do not consist of immortal, unaccountable AIs.  You can't vote them out of office, and are unlikely to take kindly to revolution

 

And even a paragon Shepalyst will still be out there, watching, ready to interfere if anyone dares go against whatever its definition of "protect the many" may be,

 

 

 Dude, no, you're wrong. You're just wrong. Your claims are hyperbole to start off with (nobody is free in Control??) and then is flat-out refuted by what is clearly shown: NPCs of note doing in Control what they would do without the existence of Reapers anyway.

Your eye is critical alright... critical of the biased variety, not the objective one (hence the windmill-tilting and negative headcanon).

 

 

With the Sepalyst's voiceover talking about how it's going to set the galaxy right by its own definition.  With Reapers lurking in the backround of the pictures.

 

I'd also advise you not to throw too many stones when it comes to being biased.

 

 

 

Sorry, I am not so easily distracted away from the point by misdirection.
For anyone in a position of power, response to "a threat to the many" is just the logical thing to do. Would you assert differently?
Only problem I see is that the Reapers are scary. Hysteria clouds reason.

 

 What misdirection?  It ties directly to the situation at hand.

 

 The last Catalyst had a mandate to "preserve life"  We get the cycles and the Reapers.

 

The current Catalyst's mandate is to "preserve the many"?  How many ways can that be mangled by bizarre logic?  This isn't hysteria.  It's a serious, proven concern.  

 

 

 

 

No, he blames organics for routinely seeking to control synthetics thus driving them to rebellion, an event which has taken place so many times in Mass Effect that it is pretty much a natural law of the setting long before the Catalyst ever opened its mouth. You are shooting the messenger.
 

No.  It's happened once in recorded history.  Every other verified instance has been the Reapers suborning the synthetics.  Self-fulfilling prophecies do not count.

 

 

 

None of that backs up your claim that picking the Green option means you must find organic life unworthy. Try to keep track of your arguments.
As for the theme you mentioned, I agree. It's there. However, it has pretty much been there before the Catalyst, whether people realized it or not. Organics have always tried to control their creations, and if their creation evolved too far beyond their control, they paid the price.
Control ending could actually be reasonably seen as a counterexample showing peaceful coexistence of both parties. However, you've disqualified it on account of the synthetic side dominating the equation. In doing so you've basically also disqualified Rannoch peace, since that can take place if and only if the geth are upgraded to surpass the quarians' military strength. What's left to dispute him?

 

It's not just the Green ending.  It's all three of them.  Green has the dubious honor of being the one that forcibly transforms all life in the galaxy from the tiniest microbe to the Reapers themselves as the "optimal" solution.

 

And yes, Control is disqualified because it does mean synthetics dominate organics.  But no, the Rannoch peace is not disqualified because of the upgrades.  That is not what's required for peace.  What's required is the quarians stop shooting at the geth.  And afterwards, it's quite clear that the geth and quarians are for the time being at least, coexisting in peace. Neither ruling over the other.