160 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

Indeed, it didn't change the story. But it helped define the character. You could punch Manuel or not, but you couldn't avoid saying "The Citadel? The fight's here" in ME3's prologue, a line at least equally as character-defining. So I maintain that the ability to make specific character-defining choices - in this case, the ability to not show Shepard as a stupid grunt - was taken away.

 

In ME1 it was almost as bad, though... They would give you a couple of slots on the wheel that led to essentially (if not exactly) the same dialogue being delivered.  As a result, there were many instances in that game where the player was being given only the illusion of being able to define the character as either a paragon or a renegade, depending on the placement they selected... not the resulting dialogue that Shepard delivered.  I think this does reflect the opinion of the developer that, in certain situations, a paragon soldier or a renegade soldier would likely behave the same way.  I'm not saying the developer is right about this assumption... just that the developer's assumptions were ALWAYS a big part of the Mass Effect game... that from the very beginning, the player had less choice in defining their own character than they believed.  That Bioware was more successful in creating this illusion in ME1 and ME2 meant that fewer players felt as hurt about it as they did with ME3.

 

Personally, I felt very little change in the degree to which the player to "define" the personality of their soldier across the three games.  I fully acknowledge that other people feel differently about this.  Perhaps a consideration as well is that most of the personality development of the character was perhaps perceived by the developer as having taken place in ME2... but IF part of the developer's stance was that war shapes the soldier into much the same individual (per discussion with Javik), then, I think, they followed a pattern from the start that suggests they were headed in the direction of "all roads lead to Rome." - All personalities lead to one sort of soldier post-war. 

 

(I'm not saying I personally agree with that stance... I'm saying there are indications in the game that this may have been the author's direction for the game from the start.  I do uphold that the author can write even a role-playing game in order to "make" whatever philosophical point they want in the end.  It's not a crime for an author to end a story however they see fit.).

[UpUpAway]

If you took offense at what I asked here, well, there's nothing I can do about it.  I won't apologize, as I don't see anything there that I think could be interpreted as an attack.  A challenge, maybe.  Since you are talking about foreshadowing within the dialogue of earlier ME games referring to ME3's outcome (ie Barla Von's comment on how you can never win "the game" ), I have selected a couple of other seemingly significant statement and asking what you think of them, namely comments from Saren and The Illusive Man, two antagonists of Shepard's who end up siding with the Reapers.

 

OK, we'll try to get back to more academic (neutral) ground here.  I did respond to your quote from Saren saying I felt the company had broached that concept at a few different points in the game... one being with the quote I provided from Zaeed which seems to imply that submitting is what most people would do... but that "trained killers" (e.g. soldiers) don't and psychopaths don't... and that "a lot of people" don't see a difference between those two groups.  While including Zaeed is completely an option (he's DLC) and going down to his quarters to get his opinions on anything is also completely an option... Shepard has no option to respond to Zaeed's comments either.

 

I think the imagery at the end o the game (TIM nodding if control is selected and Anderson nodding if destroy is selected) reveals that the control choice would denote bottom line allegiance to Cerberus and the destroy choice would denote a bottom line allegience to the Alliance by Shepard.  If the player sees it as a moral choice, then it would become one for that player.  However, it is possible to choose by believing Shepard to be just a "dumb grunt" depending solely on who he felt he should be taking orders from at that point (in which case he is most likely to choose the destroy ending).  I'd have to go back to ME1 to find the dialogue, but I do believe there is some regarding "trusting in the chain of command" and I also think there are several places where Shepard can indicate that "he's just a soldier" and I don't think the opposing dialogue is all that different (i.e. I don't think the opposing dialogue really suggests that Shepard doesn't answer at all to the Alliance in particular.)

 

TIM doesn't side with the Reapers - he wants to overthrow their power and control them - basically a coupe.  Saren wasn't siding with the Reapers based on agreeing with their philosophy... he was selling out to them just to stay alive.  Also, IMO, Synthesis doesn't represent "siding with the Reapers" either because the Reapers never offer an allegience or synthesis at all during any point in the game.  The Catalyst is not ever represented as a construct of the Reapers, but rather either a construct of Leviathan (literal sense) or a construct of Shepard (post-death or as dying reflective interpretation - based on Tennyson, which we have already discussed and which, BTW, is a NOT indoctrinated theory).

 

If we assume the literal - i.e. the Catalyst was created by Leviathan... then we know the Catalyst betrayed Leviathan and created the Reapers because it saw no other way out of the problem it was tasked to solve.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the Catalyst was "happy" about that solution and may indeed have been very happy to have found, in Shepard, a better solution than it's own creation of Reapers.  If we assume that the Catalyst is a construct of Shepard (debating with himself the choice before him)... then Synthesis may merely represent not blindly following the orders/leadership of either Cerberus or the Alliance... but just going his own road.  Refusal could also mean Shepard going his own road based on a solid philosophy that the best way to heal something is to "let nature take it's course."  (... and I'm expecting that people will probably now say I'm under-interpreting this because they fall back on this whole Indoctrination Theory, etc.... and I don't want to get into a discussion about which ending is "right" for anyone to choose.  Personally, I choose different ones depending on what I'm doing with that particularly playthrough.)

 

If people want to uphold that the Catalyst speaks for the Reapers... I would throw in the question:  "Do your parents always speak for you?"... but people are certainly welcome to answer that question for themselves in their own way... I'm just throwing it in as "food for thought."

[Dantriges]

Considering that the catalyst says it´s the collective intelligence of all Reapers (could be untrue, sure) and the Reapers follow the command to leave in Control without hesitation, continuing with Reapers doing what the Shepalyst wants, my money is on "it has a pretty tight leash around the Reapers tentacles." Ok it could be that you persuade them or so, but Control was never labeled as "politely suggest."

[CronoDragoon]

@CronoDragoon:

I read Hulk's article a while ago and found it rather pretentious, and his condescension towards those who didn't like the ending didn't exactly help. "The purpose of life and death", really? Now does he claim to know things unknown by the other seven billion people on Earth? Also, perhaps he overlooked that fatalism isn't exactly the message of the story that came before the ending? Or that this was about the breaking of a cycle rather than affirming one?

 

Yes it was pretentious and condescending, and he made a second article shortly after that apologized for it and clarified his analysis a bit. As for the message of the story, well, that's up to interpretation obviously. It's very possible to have a Mass Effect playthrough where more cycles are affirmed than broken. I personally don't agree with his comments on fatalism, but I do agree that the ending is quite obviously about the nature of cycles. The main reason I linked it is because it also brings up the existential analysis of which becc was speaking, not because I agree with what he says.

[elrofrost]

 

The story was about Shepard as a Nietzchean Übermensch, a charismatic soldier who managed to unite an entire galaxy and overthrow a billion-year-old evolutionary control system. He fought the gods themselves, and made a choice that transcended the domain of mortals, beyond good and evil; the choice of a god. He either killed them, replaced them, or reconciled them with the mortal realm. He was a champion of life, and was granted the authority to define it. He will be remembered for all time. The stuff of legends and myths.

 

Just trying to bring some positivity to this often pessimistic forum.

 

It's about choice. Which is why so many players were (and still are) upset that ME3 didn't really give the choices many wanted at the end.

 

But it did. The fact was, Shepard was going to die. How he dies is the choice. Does he sacrifice himself to save us all, or does he go down fighting? The particulars of his death don't matter. 

I think where the dev's made a mistake is they didn't make those choices clear. 

But to me, the sacrifice was a profound choice. After playing this char for years through 3 games and many DLC's - he was going to die. And he [Shepard] died well.

[MrFob]

Ok, I’ve been lurking this thread for the past couple of days, given some likes and read all the posts but I was not sure if I should post here. For one thing, we already discussed most of this way back in the days and I hope I won’t be drawn back into a long winded discussion about topics which are long since resolved (or at least argued to exhaustion). The reception of some long standing posters and the arising question what the hell they are still doing here after 4 years didn't exactly encourage either.

Also, I feel like there is a lot of vivid discussion going on here, most of which I really like even if I disagree on a lot of points. So don’t misinterpret this post as an attempt to shout people down or sour their interpretations of the ending. As I have said before, I am very happy for anyone who can take something positive from the endings.

But then, I thought it would be just as self absorbed not to post my opinion even if it is not by any means new or unknown. After all, this thread is somewhat unique in that it offers a lot of very thought-through and in-depth analyses of some of the points underlying the story and the ending. Thanks beccatoria for that long post, definitely one of the most thought provoking, clear and logical positive analyses of the concepts of the ending. I really enjoyed reading it and even after 4 years, it offered some points I had never heard mentioned before (at least not so eloquently).

All that said, I think there are a few dots in this discussion that are not yet connected but which I see as inseparable, that’s why I ended up posting after all, to explain why I (and only me personally) do not love the philosophical underpinnings of the ending:

 

Let’s start with the OP and with Shepard as a Nietzschean Ubermensch. I think this is a very valid interpretation as far as the choices are concerned. The choice in the end is really a choice for an Ubermensch, the decision in whatever way you put it is entirely im- (and therefore non-)moral it even encompasses in an almost literal sense transcending the “Ewige Wiederkunft” (eternal cycle). But if we look a little closer, it doesn’t quite fit after all:
Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is explicitly not emerging from a hero or a saint but rather the immoral self-absorbed power hungry egomaniac. It is the epitome of individualism that sheds of the all too human mantle of platonian philosophy. Right up until the ending, Shepard (even renegade) is the antithesis of Nietzsche’s Ubermensch. Throughout the story of the ME games, s/he is a fairly classic hero in the sense of a Percival, rather than a Caesare Borgia and thus not qualified for the role as the Ubermensch.
Also, the transcendence of the cycle doesn’t really fit, even though it’s a very nice match on first glance. Nietzsche’s Ubermensch doesn’t really transcend or fight the cycle and its accompanying nihilistic implications, he simply understands it, makes it a part of himself by integrating it into his life and therefore frees himself by simply dealing with the truth. The cycle of the reapers is far too much a blunt and simple allegory for what is a philosophical construction of a world view to really reflect it.
So if the endings wanted to go for a straight up reinterpretation of Nietzschean ideas, than I’d have to say they failed.

But maybe that wasn’t the intent at all. Maybe the idea was to twist Nietzsche’s ideas on purpose to portray their own message, their own take on the workings of the universe. Wouldn’t that be an even greater achievement than to simply rehash old ideas from the late 19th century? (I know I’d agree since I am not a Nietzsche fan at all, more on that below)

 

Which brings me to beccatoria and his/her view of the endings as statements about transhumanism, which is especially pertinent in the synthesis ending. Let me preface this by saying that I am also a strong proponent of transhumanist ideas. I fully endorse the concept and I am fascinated by the implications. I tend to focus more on their positive potential, rather than – as many seem to do – on the horrific negative possibilities (although I fully expect some of those to come with it). In real life, I even chose a career that lets me do basic research for brain-machine-interfaces and I chose that job in large part because I want to be involved on the cutting edge of the development of transhumans, which I believe to be the future of our species.
Much like you, I see scientific and engineering advancements as the inevitable product of human evolution, free from morality or guilt. I like how you framed our evolutionary niche as that of tool building and from there built the causal bridge to the inevitability of the transhuman future. That makes perfect sense and I agree with it.
What I don’t agree with is the stance that the ME3 synthesis ending is an endorsement of that future, a message that is positive about it. To me, that ending is one of the most horrific incarnations of that scenario that I have ever seen in SciFi (and there are a lot that deliberately try to be horrific). This is because while to me discovery is free of ethics, application most certainly is not. And this ending – while portraying a concept I am very fond of for the future of humanity - flies in the face of everything I consider responsible application of the concept.

Let me go on what may seem like a bit of a tangent here: Since we spoke about Nietzsche before (bear with me here), while I can appreciate his thoughts on an intellectual level, I think he was dead wrong in a lot of his ideas. I don’t think egomaniacal individualism is going to lead to the evolution of mankind (well, it might but I don’t think it is the best or even the most efficient way and history shows that those people devolve the whole more than they evolve it).
I rather think that Kant had it right with his ideas of cooperative equalitarian individualism. I want the right to choose my own path as much as possible, to follow my beliefs and my take on philosophy that originate from my perspective on life. But in demanding that I have to acknowledge that everyone has their individual perspective. Since I have no logical basis to assume that mine is superior to everyone (as I simply don’t know them all), the most safe and efficient way to ensure progress of mankind is to maximize everyone’s individual freedom within the boundaries given by necessary interactions.

Therefore, when I am dreaming about our transhuman future, it is vitally important to implement it on an individual basis, to let everyone choose their own path. Otherwise it will not evolve the species. Well, it may from a biological and purely cognitive perspective but it will devolve our cultural, social and philosophical achievements (and I go with Mordin and proclaim those as at least equally important).

From my point of view, that is exactly what synthesis does and it is not unsimilar to what “reaperfication” does. In synthesis we “uplift” (yes, it’s not that different to what the slarians did to the krogan) the entire population of the galaxy without consent and – to make matters worse – at gunpoint of the reapers. Therefore, in my opinion, synthesis is not an endorsement of the transhuman concept but it rather is a malicious caricature of it. That is in the original cut. The EC made it even worse by painting a happy face on it, making it into a twisted distorted picture where facts are ignored, implications swept under the rug and causalities not picked up on for the sake of a sickly sweet epilogue. I don’t even know how I should discuss that without stumbling over it’s many internal contradictions.

That is a problem which I have generally when discussing the endings on such a high philosophical level. I’d love to do it more (and as I said, I found this thread super interesting) but to me the philosophical concepts first and foremost have to fit into the story and the story has to work in it’s own right. If that is not given or if it doesn’t fit together, for me the philosophical level of interpretation looses connection to the story. And then I’d rather discuss the philosophy without the context of the story.
I am happy to talk about transhumanism as a concept and it’s implications but the ME endings don’t give me that much basis to start from because – as leidra pointed out before – the terminology is all messed up and the implementation, both from a technical viewpoint as well as from a social one (in the EC) is implausible.
I’d love to talk about destroy but there are so many contradictions in destroy itself that I don’t have a firm basis to stand upon when trying to construct an argument: Is it the a glorification of the concept of absolute freedom (an antithesis to control as beccatoria put it)? That doesn’t mesh with the fact that the reapers offer it and with the catalyst’s motives at all. Is it a rejection of the reapers and their sense of order? Well, we still get the option itself from them and the genocide of synthetics is a reminder that we do it on their terms. Is it the destruction of gods as the OP puts it? Maybe but it’s more like the gods let themselves be destroyed. Again, as leidra pointed out, the fact that the (former) antagonist gives you the options muddles any independent interpretation of destroy and to any argument I can myself give the counterargument because the factual foundations are contradictory (and no, this is not a conceptualized paradox, it’s one character saying one thing in one sentence and the opposite in the next).
Control on the other hand is IMO already too well characterized by the game before the endings to be truly free of moral judgement. It’s like the story itself has already decided that control is bad before you get the option and then it’s not anymore. Maybe one could argue that this juxtaposition of moral judgement and the final lack of it is deliberate in order to emphasize the subjectivity of morality itself (this has also been proposed a couple of times in this thread). This is probably one of the most viable concepts that would work as a philosophical interpretation of the ending but it is a cyclical argument IMO. The story needed to be broken in order to give the story meaning? I think this is an unsatisfactory solution and I don’t think the ME story needed it to achieve depth.

This brings us (fiiinally, sorry for the massive post) to what I believe is the crux of the endings and what I consider the problem of their philosophical underpinnings: I think it’s pretty clear that the writers started out with the underpinnings themselves, with the philosophical message they wanted to convey. They had a goal there in the endings. They conceptualized the endings around a high level philosophical construct. You can actually see it in Mac’s infamous scribble notes. Then, once they had these ideas firmly in their heads they tried to shove them into this story. They did this with force and it shows. In some cases it worked fairly well on it’s own (the reapers do lend themselves well to the synthetic-organic conflict and the three options flow from that, I’ll acknowledge this much) but in others, they had to force it in, leading to tiny contradictions that stack up until they actually blur the underlying message to a point where interpretation almost gets arbitrary.
To me it is clear that the philosophical underpinnings of the endings were not planned or intended throughout the story of the trilogy. Granted, the trilogy itself touches on a vast number of concepts and some of them were bound to be similar points as the endings but I think that anyone who claims that any of this was an ingenious masterstroke of a writing team is deluding themselves (especially when it gets to the level that you have to use stuff like a random quote from Zaeed about killers and psychopaths to make your point).

Now I am not saying that that makes the interpretation less valid, less interesting or less beautiful. As it has been stated, author intent is not everything. All I want to point out is that all these interpretations don’t change the fact that the writing was bungled big time. In fact, I don't think I have seen anyone praise the endings for anything but the possible interpretations. The writers managed to include huge ideas in the endings, yes, but I think they are neither original, nor especially beautiful (synthesis especially is hideous to me) nor do they fit into this story very well. And the story itself, which I have to go through in order to get to the interpretations is messed up. That’s why I don’t recognize it as a big accomplishment. Implementing those concepts is fairly easy in and of itself, weaving them into a story seamlessly and without causing a whole bunch of issues for both the concepts themselves as well as for the story, that’s the tricky part. It worked well for the genophage, the geth-quarian conflict, the xenophile/phobe controvercy, the means vs. ends discussions, etc. and all their underlying questions about the nature of life, freedom, evolution and interference, consciousness and the boundaries of self-determination. IMO it didn’t really work for the Mass Effect 3 endings.

[UpUpAway]

@MrFob - Since you've decided to single me out yet again - Please provide a direct quote where I ever said that "this was an ingenious masterstroke of a writing." - because I didn't.

[MrFob]

 

@MrFob - Since you've decided to single me out yet again - Please provide a direct quote where I ever said that "this was an ingenious masterstroke of a writing." - because I didn't.

 

 

Uh, I singled you out in my post? I wasn't aware I did (didn't even mention your name). Also, you wrote "yet again", where did I single you out before? I am honestly not sure what you mean.

 

As for the quote, "this was an "ingenious masterstroke of a writing": No one said that in this thread as far as I am aware. It's just that if someone did pre-plan a trilogy and hide subtle hints that all add up and mesh into each other like a mosaic, leading to a grand finale that is both great in it's own right and has vast philosophical underpinnings, I would myself consider it an ingenious masterstroke of a writing. Unfortunately, as I said, there are a lot of indications that this is not the case for the Mass Effect trilogy but that's why I went with that expression.

 

Sorry if I gave offense (as I said in the beginning of that post, that was not my intention).

 

EDIT: Oh, now I get it, you meant the Zaeed quote. Ok, I guess I kind of singled you out for that one. Sorry, maybe I shouldn't have put that parenthesis there. It just was what I considered the most obvious over-interpretation of a line of dialogue I have seen in this thread. Sure, there are a lot of rather insignificant dialogue lines by side characters that one can make to look consistent throughout the trilogy but all the lines that you provided would be extremely subtle hints. This would be great if it weren't for "the big stuff" that doesn't add up throughout the trilogy. For me it is hard to believe that they got all these subtle hints in while not even acknowledging (I am not saying resolving but not even acknowledging) some big question marks, such as the catalyst's role in ME1, the inconsistencies in Sovereign's speech the shifts in what exactly the genophage does, the nature of the geth (or AI in general), Cerberus' constant change and many more. Before those issues are not resolved, I don't see a basis for discussing single lines of ambient dialogue.

 

Furthermore, in my opinion, a philosophical concept will likely not be picked up on by the audience if it is implemented through random characters who have no connection to the concept (or in Zaeed's case even philosophy as a whole ). Zaeed seems like a character who "says it like it is" and he doesn't really lend himself very well to this kind of subtlety within the story (same goes e.g. for Barla Van, who has no cause to mean anything more by his statement about playing the game than is fairly apparent). Now, there are writers who use this apparent disconnect on purpose. After all, it's the author who want to convey the underpinning, not necessarily the character. But given how I think BW was not very good even with the more straight forward techniques there (see the above post), I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

 

So yea, I did single you out there I guess but it wasn't a personal attack and I apologize if it came across as one. I wanted to make a remark on this text related issue, not on your person specifically.

Modifié par MrFob, 15 mars 2016 - 11:45 .

[UpUpAway]

Uh, I singled you out in my post? I wasn't aware I did (didn't even mention your name). Also, you wrote "yet again", where did I single you out before? I am honestly not sure what you mean.

 

As for the quote, "this was an "ingenious masterstroke of a writing": No one said that in this thread as far as I am aware. It's just that if someone did pre-plan a trilogy and hide subtle hints that all add up and mesh into each other like a mosaic, leading to a grand finale that is both great in it's own right and has vast philosophical underpinnings, I would myself consider it an ingenious masterstroke of a writing. Unfortunately, as I said, there are a lot of indications that this is not the case for the Mass Effect trilogy but that's why I went with that expression.

 

Sorry if I gave offense (as I said in the beginning of that post, that was not my intention).

 

EDIT: Oh, now I get it, you meant the Zaeed quote. Ok, I guess I kind of singled you out for that one. Sorry, maybe I shouldn't have put that parenthesis there. It just was what I considered the most obvious over-interpretation of a line of dialogue I have seen in this thread. Sure, there are a lot of rather insignificant dialogue lines by side characters that one can make to look consistent throughout the trilogy but all the lines that you provided would be extremely subtle hints. This would be great if it weren't for "the big stuff" that doesn't add up throughout the trilogy. For me it is hard to believe that they got all these subtle hints in while not even acknowledging (I am not saying resolving but not even acknowledging) some big question marks, such as the catalyst's role in ME1, the inconsistencies in Sovereign's speech the shifts in what exactly the genophage does, the nature of the geth (or AI in general), Cerberus' constant change and many more. Before those issues are not resolved, I don't see a basis for discussing single lines of ambient dialogue.

 

Furthermore, in my opinion, a philosophical concept will likely not be picked up on by the audience if it is implemented through random characters who have no connection to the concept (or in Zaeed's case even philosophy as a whole ). Zaeed seems like a character who "says it like it is" and he doesn't really lend himself very well to this kind of subtlety within the story (same goes e.g. for Barla Van, who has no cause to mean anything more by his statement about playing the game than is fairly apparent). Now, there are writers who use this apparent disconnect on purpose. After all, it's the author who want to convey the underpinning, not necessarily the character. But given how I think BW was not very good even with the more straight forward techniques there (see the above post), I am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

 

So yea, I did single you out there I guess but it wasn't a personal attack and I apologize if it came across as one. I wanted to make a remark on this text related issue, not on your person specifically.

 

"Obvious over-interpretation, eh?"  All I really said about it was that it broached the same sort of topic as the quote provided by lakus - "Is submission not preferable to extinction."  I don't think it takes much interpretation to connect that situation of someone holding a gun to someone's face - do they submit to what the gunman wants or do they allow themselves to "become extinct?"... and the writer answered the question with "only two types of people won't submit - trained killers and psychopaths."  The writer in that instance is stating an opinion (whether it is accurately "their" opinion or just an opinion the author felt that someone of Zaeed's character would have is unknown).   

 

Seems like a far simpler interpretation of the writing in the game than all the deep philosophy being discussed in many of the other posts (including yours).  The game does insert these little "tongue in cheek" moments repeatedly.  Another example... you can trigger a discussion between Shepard and Conrad Verner about thermal clips in ME3... a topic that has also been discussed ad nauseum here on these forums.  The conversation has a clear bias towards the idea of thermal clips being a step backward... again, it's a spot in the game where the writers state an opinion - whether or not it is their opinion or just a mockery of these forums is unknown... but people can still guess/interpret the sequence however they choose.

[MrFob]

Yea, I think it is an over-interpretation to connect those two lines, spoken by two different characters (most likely written by two different writers) in two different games, speaking about two different scenarios while themselves being in two different circumstances and in a completely different relationship to the character they are saying these lines to. Note: I don't have a problem with you connecting the two lines. I can see where you are coming from with this but claiming that this is a tongue in cheek moment that the writers intended, one where we hear Zaeed's line and are supposed to go "Hey, that's like what Saren said!", I doubt that very much.That's all I'm saying.

 

I'm right with you concerning the thermal clip thing, which is a completely different situation, here it is very clear what they are talking about (because they mention it directly).

[UpUpAway]

Yea, I think it is an over-interpretation to connect those two lines, spoken by two different characters (most likely written by two different writers) in two different games, speaking about two different scenarios while themselves being in two different circumstances and in a completely different relationship to the character they are saying these lines to. Note: I don't have a problem with you connecting the two lines. I can see where you are coming from with this but claiming that this is a tongue in cheek moment that the writers intended, one where we hear Zaeed's line and are supposed to go "Hey, that's like what Saren said!", I doubt that very much.That's all I'm saying.

 

I'm right with you concerning the thermal clip thing, which is a completely different situation, here it is very clear what they are talking about (because they mention it directly).

 

You're misinterpreting what I'm doing there... I'm not directly connecting the two lines... I'm just saying they address the same sort of circumstances and that, with the second, a "stance" or leaning on that circumstance is expressed.  In other words, Zaeed's comment is not a neutral one... so, it is capable of transmitting an "opinion" to the player that is not necessarily the player's own opinion.  There are a number of moral dilemmas in the game where the player believes they solve those dilemmas themselves... but frequently there are other lines in the game that can create a leaning towards taking a certain direction on those moral dilemmas.  I agree that the Zaeed statement is not the "best" example of this... but I was working from the quote of Saren that Lakus gave me.

 

All I'm saying is that the game is not neutral... it has a "preferred" stance (Western, Christian, leaning towards peaceful cooperation, etc.) and that stance doesn't just pop out of the blue in the endings... it's there all along buried in little bits of dialogue, buried in how the game allocates P/R points, War Assets and even credits.  It's not a masterstroke of writing... but rather a reflection of who the writers were (Western, probably Christian, etc.).  They have tried to express alternate philosophies in the game... but they were not, it seems, able to totally divest themselves of their own leanings... so that creeps into the writing.  When they tried to lean both ways... they often did it poorly.  This is, however, an almost inevitable thing in writing since writers do tend to put a whole lot of themselves into their works.  This makes a "special difficulty" with role-playing games where the player also wants to put a whole of themselves into their player character(s).  When the leanings match, the game is perceived more easily as being "good"; when the leanings don't match, the player is left feeling "unsatisfied" because they feel they've been made to "play" as someone they are just not.

 

Lakus has expressed great difficulty with the endings because he/she doesn't see one that gets him/her out of committing some sort of mass genocide... and I can't argue with him/her... there IS that sort of underpinning that CAN BE interpreted with each of the endings  All he/she can do to move on from this is to disconnect himself/herself from his/her player character or to put the ending into a "after death" or "indoctrination" framework... so that nothing within Shepard's control ever actually happens to the galaxy.  At this stage of the game, it's abundantly clear that Bioware will not change ME3's endings.  ME:A, as a result, is off to a "bad" start regardless of what they do... but IF one wants to give themselves any chance of enjoying ME:A for what it will be, they have to find a way to put ME3's endings behind them. 

 

I've used Tennyson's Ulysses and convinced myself that Shepard just died before he/she could activate the crucible... Hackett may have been able to activate it or maybe he already had and just didn't know it... and maybe it does something completely different than what everyone thought it did.  So, now... ME:A can start from fresh even if they position it after ME3.  If they start it between ME2 and ME3 or before ME1, I'm still good.  I'm not bothered by ME3's endings anymore... and, I think, that's a good thing.

[MrFob]

You're misinterpreting what I'm doing there... I'm not directly connecting the two lines... I'm just saying they address the same sort of circumstances and that, with the second, a "stance" or leaning on that circumstance is expressed. In other words, Zaeed's comment is not a neutral one... so, it is capable of transmitting an "opinion" to the player that is not necessarily the player's own opinion. There are a number of moral dilemmas in the game where the player believes they solve those dilemmas themselves... but frequently there are other lines in the game that can create a leaning towards taking a certain direction on those moral dilemmas. I agree that the Zaeed statement is not the "best" example of this... but I was working from the quote of Saren that Lakus gave me.

I can agree with this. I mean, characters expressing opinions is a prerequisite of a character after all.
I guess my "misinterpretation" came mainly from this:

I don't think it takes much interpretation to connect that situation of someone holding a gun to someone's face - do they submit to what the gunman wants or do they allow themselves to "become extinct?"... and the writer answered the question with "only two types of people won't submit - trained killers and psychopaths."

That's what I disagree with because IMO these two are talking about very different things. Ironically, I think Saren - being a stone cold killer himself - would probably not buckle easily with a gun to his head.
But ok, if you only meant what you said in your last post, I can agree with that.

 

All I'm saying is that the game is not neutral... it has a "preferred" stance (Western, Christian, leaning towards peaceful cooperation, etc.) and that stance doesn't just pop out of the blue in the endings... it's there all along buried in little bits of dialogue, buried in how the game allocates P/R points, War Assets and even credits.

Now, this again confounds me. The second part about this is fine, the game certainly has these values woven into the story. I wouldn't even say it's subtle, often enough they hammer these values down as much as they can. But why would anyone see them "just pop out of the blue in the endings"? The ending choices - as has been said by me and others here - can either be perceived as immoral or amoral but I really don't see how they could be perceived as building on the values you describe. Are you talking about the EC epilogues?

[UpUpAway]

I can agree with this. I mean, characters expressing opinions is a prerequisite of a character after all.
I guess my "misinterpretation" came mainly from this:

That's what I disagree with because IMO these two are talking about very different things. Ironically, I think Saren - being a stone cold killer himself - would probably not buckle easily with a gun to his head.
But ok, if you only meant what you said in your last post, I can agree with that.

 

Now, this again confounds me. The second part about this is fine, the game certainly has these values woven into the story. I wouldn't even say it's subtle, often enough they hammer these values down as much as they can. But why would anyone see them "just pop out of the blue in the endings"? The ending choices - as has been said by me and others here - can either be perceived as immoral or amoral but I really don't see how they could be perceived as building on the values you describe. Are you talking about the EC epilogues?

 

In part, yes... because the EC dialogues were the company's attempt to reconcile an angry public to their interpretation of their own endings... and their own "biases" colored those epilogues... but if you take a bit of time to "over-analyze" the dialogue, you can start to see that their preferences do bias that dialogue throughout all three games... that there are many instances where you feel you have a greater choice than you actually do and other instances where you will feel that the game is "guiding" you to make a particular choice in a later part of the game.

 

One way that might make it more evident to you is to take some different imports from ME2 into ME3 (i.e ME2 imports where you did things very differently from each other not only with the major decisions from are prominent but with other side decisions as well, then replay through parts of ME3 with "No Decisions" and see how the dialogue changes to "coerce" your Shepard ito their "preferred" direction... that is, notice what they say differently and do differently with your Shepard when they have control the over him/her... and, as well, how much they don't have to change regardless of how different you think your Shepards are starting out in ME3.

 

As the Illusive Man says - "The patterns are there, buried in the data."

[MrFob]

See, that's exactly the problem that I have with the EC epilogues. First they come up with the deliberately morally ambiguous final choice (that is horrible and has a lot of plot problems of its own but there it is) in the original cut. Then they say that they want to make an EC but don't really want to change anything because of artistic integrity, so far so good, I was mostly ok with that. Next thing they do is to release an EC that completely undermines the ambiguity of those ending choices and goes back to the  fairly biased structure that the game had before. That really was a big issue for me.  How am I supposed to seriously talk about possible philosophical underpinnings of the ending if they themselves either didn't see them or didn't take them seriously at all.

 

On a related point, I agree that the consequences of the choices are limited in scope but the question then is if that is a deliberate commentary on the meaninglessness of choice itself or simply a constraint imposed by limited resources in the creation of the game.

 

Knowing that the latter is a big issue for developers, I was actually impressed how much variety they did manage to pack into ME3 (here is an example where I elaborate on that, concerning the Tuchanka arc), so strictly speaking for myself I don't think that there is an underlying philosophical concept to the aspect of limited consequences. To me it looks like they tried as hard as they could to diversify the game (and they also advertised their efforts e.g. here and here).

 

However, if there were the deeper meaning in the game setup as you describe it, I would find it extremely cynical and downright fatalistic. If choices are ultimately meaningless, then we as individuals become automatons and one would have to ask why we should even start to think about the nature of our existence?

[UpUpAway]

However, if there were the deeper meaning in the game setup as you describe it, I would find it extremely cynical and downright fatalistic. If choices are ultimately meaningless, then we as individuals become automatons and one would have to ask why we should even start to think about the nature of our existence?

 

... and that is a question many authors have posed in their works... like Tennyson in "Ulysses"... but the question is not really "are our choices ultimately meaningless?" but rather "on what level are they meaningful?"  To just ourselves? To ourselves and our immediate friends? To our community?  We are not automatons, but neither do any of us really ever get the chance to save the world either.  Certainly Shepard's choices throughout the game (regardless of the endings) made a difference to his/her crew. 

 

As I said, I reconciled it by reverting back to the Western Christian imagery of "death and ascension" - not at the point before going up to the citadel; but at the point after the final conversation with Anderson.  Why there - because that wraps the last personal relationship Shepard has in the game and because, I believe, that the choice of how to save the galaxy is something that is ultimately not ever going to be in the hands of one person.  Bioware inserted the imagery at that point of Shepard looking at how much blood he/she was losing and of him/her collapsing outright while reaching for the console (still wanting to follow orders, still wanting to save the galaxy) intentionally.  Because of that imagery, I see Shepard dying before he/she could finish his/her mission.

 

I do think that Bioware should have ended the game right there... but they felt obligated (likely because it was a game) to give some varying degree of "credit" based on some arbitrarily score in order to end it as a game and not as a book... and then they dug their hole deeper by writing the EC.

 

On a philosophical basis, I think the endings really only show us that there are issues with any way we, as humanity, might try to resolve a "universal" threat to our existence as an entire species.  Ultimately, our (players) disagreements over the endings tell us that we're just not going to be able to come together enough to do so.  It is a pessimistic view to be sure.  Still, I don't think that any of the individual dinosaurs, even as they probably realized their species was going extinct, considered themselves to be automatons and that all their own individual choices that affected their day to day living were "meaningless."  Our choices matter to ourselves and to others within our actual sphere of influence... and I do also think that message is included in the game as well.  The Catalyst does indicate "You have choice, more than you know."

 

Also, they did bring in Tennyson's "Ulysses" (albeit it was optional if you didn't pursue conversations with Ashley); and although they never do cite the ending of that poem... it does end with:

 

that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

 

[AlanC9]

See, that's exactly the problem that I have with the EC epilogues. First they come up with the deliberately morally ambiguous final choice (that is horrible and has a lot of plot problems of its own but there it is) in the original cut. Then they say that they want to make an EC but don't really want to change anything because of artistic integrity, so far so good, I was mostly ok with that. Next thing they do is to release an EC that completely undermines the ambiguity of those ending choices and goes back to the  fairly biased structure that the game had before That really was a big issue for me.  How am I supposed to seriously talk about possible philosophical underpinnings of the ending if they themselves either didn't see them or didn't take them seriously at all.

I don't really want to get in between you two here, but am I correctly reading that the moral ambiguity depended on an ambiguous physical reality? So it'd be ambiguous even for a straight-up utilitarian because we didn't know what the specific utility payoffs were in the different choices, even after the fact?

[Dantriges]

I do think that Bioware should have ended the game right there... but they felt obligated (likely because it was a game) to give some varying degree of "credit" based on some arbitrarily score in order to end it as a game and not as a book... and then they dug their hole deeper by writing the EC.

Then they should have written a book.

[Ieldra]

... and that is a question many authors have posed in their works... like Tennyson in "Ulysses"... but the question is not really "are our choices ultimately meaningless?" but rather "on what level are they meaningful?"  To just ourselves? To ourselves and our immediate friends? To our community?  We are not automatons, but neither do any of us really ever get the chance to save the world either.  Certainly Shepard's choices throughout the game (regardless of the endings) made a difference to his/her crew. 
 
As I said, I reconciled it by reverting back to the Western Christian imagery of "death and ascension" - not at the point before going up to the citadel; but at the point after the final conversation with Anderson.  Why there - because that wraps the last personal relationship Shepard has in the game and because, I believe, that the choice of how to save the galaxy is something that is ultimately not ever going to be in the hands of one person.  Bioware inserted the imagery at that point of Shepard looking at how much blood he/she was losing and of him/her collapsing outright while reaching for the console (still wanting to follow orders, still wanting to save the galaxy) intentionally.  Because of that imagery, I see Shepard dying before he/she could finish his/her mission.
 
I do think that Bioware should have ended the game right there... but they felt obligated (likely because it was a game) to give some varying degree of "credit" based on some arbitrarily score in order to end it as a game and not as a book... and then they dug their hole deeper by writing the EC.

If you want a story to end like a book or a movie, you should make a book or a movie. You can get away with it in a game as well, but not if your marketing campaign screams "choices and consequences" at the highest-possible volume and the previous games in the trilogy delivered on that promise to some degree.
 
Speaking of what Bioware should've done, back in 2011, before we knew anything of ME3's scenario, I posted a scenario for the end of the Reaper wars which I still think is considerably better in terms of plausibility, player involvement and lore than that which ME3 delivered. At that time, I had never thought we'd get a choice that wouldn't result in the destruction of the Reapers, but my scenario could be easily tweaked to include Control-like and Synthesis-like outcomes. The possibility of taking Control should be obvious after you've read it, and a radical-advancement scenario could result from "destroy the Reaper minds but keep their tech", which would even keep the ambiguity of the existing scenario. The benefit would've been:
 
(1) No Catalyst, and thus no tainting of the options by having them be the antagonist's options.
(2) No artificial drawbacks not intrinsic in the choice.
(3) Absolutely no "space magic" except what had already been established in lore.
(4) No assertion of a metaphysical dimension of sacrifice.
 
The only question my scenario didn't answer is "why are they doing this". I don't think this question absolutely had to be answered, though. Coming up with a believable motivation got us the organic/synthetic conflict, which didn't really work very well IMO and wasn't particularly interesting, given how often it has been addressed in SF. Not answering it would've kept the "Thing we aren't meant to know" interpretation open, and I wouldn't have liked that at all, but I can't deny it might've worked better than what we eventually got.
 

On a philosophical basis, I think the endings really only show us that there are issues with any way we, as humanity, might try to resolve a "universal" threat to our existence as an entire species.  Ultimately, our (players) disagreements over the endings tell us that we're just not going to be able to come together enough to do so.  It is a pessimistic view to be sure.  Still, I don't think that any of the individual dinosaurs, even as they probably realized their species was going extinct, considered themselves to be automatons and that all their own individual choices that affected their day to day living were "meaningless."  Our choices matter to ourselves and to others within our actual sphere of influence... and I do also think that message is included in the game as well.  The Catalyst does indicate "You have choice, more than you know."

I think that's not where the pessimism lies. In the face of an existential threat like the Reapers, there would be no dissension about the fact that it will have to be removed as a threat. The problem in RL is rather that people tend to deny that such a threat exists until it explodes in their faces, just as people in the MEU denied the Reaper threat until it was almost too late. We may never agree about the best way to deal with such a threat, but that shouldn't make it impossible to do so nonetheless. 
 
IMO, the true pessimism of ME3's ending choices lies in the fact that you're forced to deny one or the other of your principles, and implement that denial on a galactic scale. It's not something I can't live with, unlike others, but it sends the message that in order to survive, we'll have to deny one or the other value we hold dear. It may or may not be true, but it is pessimistic, exactly because as you said, our morality may ultimately ne meaningless, but it's not meaningless for us. I might have appreciated such a message, as pessimistic as it is, because I actually do think that morality shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of everything, except that the drawbacks of Synthesis and Destroy are arbitrary and not intrinsic in the decision, while Control is tainted by association. Thus, people's frequent response "We shouldn't have to do it that way". 
 

Also, they did bring in Tennyson's "Ulysses" (albeit it was optional if you didn't pursue conversations with Ashley); and although they never do cite the ending of that poem... it does end with:

I appreciate the presence of the Ulysses quotes in the story and I agree they have application for the story as a whole, but I don't think there were put in intentionally to be a metaphor for the story. There is a distinct lack of advance planning in the trilogy. The ME team even admitted it. Things changed, and most likely they had no idea about how the trilogy was to end as late as ME2's publication date. If this were a book written by one or two authors, I might be inclined to believe in such an intention, but the ME games are collaborative works with a dozen writers or more, and - that's also very recognizable - each game was its own story first and part of a bigger whole second, and intentionally so, if only for marketing reasons. Consider the infamous line "ME3 is the best starting point".

[UpUpAway]

Then they should have written a book.

 

I actually think the whole role-playing videogame genre has problems of a similar sort... and as gaming developers are moving towards offering fewer dialogue choices and a more cinematic presentation shows that.

 

If you want a story to end like a book or a movie, you should make a book or a movie. You can get away with it in a game as well, but not if your marketing campaign screams "choices and consequences" at the highest-possible volume and the previous games in the trilogy delivered on that promise to some degree.
 
Speaking of what Bioware should've done, back in 2011, before we knew anything of ME3's scenario, I posted a scenario for the end of the Reaper wars which I still think is considerably better in terms of plausibility, player involvement and lore than that which ME3 delivered. At that time, I had never thought we'd get a choice that wouldn't result in the destruction of the Reapers, but my scenario could be easily tweaked to include Control-like and Synthesis-like outcomes. The possibility of taking Control should be obvious after you've read it, and a radical-advancement scenario could result from "destroy the Reaper minds but keep their tech", which would even keep the ambiguity of the existing scenario. The benefit would've been:
 
(1) No Catalyst, and thus no tainting of the choices by having them be the antagonist's choices.
(2) No artificial drawbacks not intrinsic in the choice.
(3) Absolutely no "space magic" except what had already been established in lore.
 
The only question my scenario didn't answer is "why are they doing this". I don't think this question absolutely had to be answered, though. Coming up with a believable motivation got us the organic/synthetic conflict, which didn't really work very well IMO and wasn't particularly interesting, given how often it has been addressed in SF. Not answering it would've kept the "Thing we aren't meant to know" interpretation open, and I wouldn't have liked that at all, but I can't deny it might've worked better than what we eventually got.
 
I think that's not where the pessimism lies. In the face of an existential threat like the Reapers, there would be no dissension about the fact that it will have to be removed as a threat. The problem in RL is rather that people tend to deny that such a threat exists until it explodes in their faces, just as people in the MEU denied the Reaper threat until it was almost too late. We may never agree about the best way to deal with such a threat, but that shouldn't make it impossible to do so nonetheless. 
 
IMO, the true pessimism of ME3's ending choices lies in the fact that you're forced to deny one or the other of your principles, and implement that denial on a galactic scale. It's not something I can't live with, unlike others, but it sends the message that in order to survive, we'll have to deny one or the other value we hold dear. It may or may not be true, but it is pessimistic, exactly because as you said, our morality may ultimately ne meaningless, but it's not meaningless for us. I might have appreciated such a message, as pessimistic as it is, because I actually do think that morality shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of everything, except that the drawbacks of Synthesis and Destroy are arbitrary and not intrinsic in the decision, while Control is tainted by association. Thus, people's frequent response "We shouldn't have to do it that way". 
 
I appreciate the presence of the Ulysses quotes in the story and I agree they have application for the story as a whole, but I don't think there were put in intentionally to be a metaphor for the story. There is a distinct lack of advance planning in the trilogy. The ME team even admitted it. Things changed, and most likely they had no idea about how the trilogy was to end as late as ME2's publication date. If this were a book written by one or two authors, I might be inclined to believe in such an intention, but the ME games are collaborative works with a dozen writers or more, and - that's also very recognizable - each game was its own story first and part of a bigger whole second, and intentionally so, if only for marketing reasons. Consider the infamous line "ME3 is the best starting point".

 

It's not a matter of "if I want" - the writer writes, the public consumes.  If THEY had wanted to end it like a book, they had every "right" to do it.  THEY didn't.  We CAN interpret the endings, we can beat up on each other for our interpretations all day long... and it's still not going to change those endings... ever.  I tend to think when so much poetry is inserted into a game... it's intentional and there is a strong likelihood that it does have a metaphoric purpose.  Did you ever notice also among the books you can buy for Ashley at the Hospital, there is another poet mentioned beyond Tennyson and Whitman?  Rumi (a 13th Century Persian mystic poet).  That reference is so discreet and so otherwise unnecessary... why put it in if it at all if there wasn't some intent to point the player in a certain direction?  In addition to the actual earth poets, we have a Krogan on Illium who recites poetry and a Salarian doctor who sings Gilbert and Sulivan.  Sorry, I really do think the poetry mentioned in this game has a fairly deep meaning... and, at any rate, it has helped me reconcile to the endings (without a complex indoctrination theory)... and I still think, that's a good thing.

[Ieldra]

I tend to think when so much poetry is inserted into a game... it's intentional and there is a strong likelihood that it does have a metaphoric purpose.  Did you ever notice also among the books you can buy for Ashley at the Hospital, there is another poet mentioned beyond Tennyson and Whitman?  Rumi (a 13th Century Persian mystic poet).  That reference is so discreet and so otherwise unnecessary... why put it in if it at all if there wasn't some intent to point the player in a certain direction?  In addition to the actual earth poets, we have a Krogan on Illium who recites poetry and a Salarian doctor who sings Gilbert and Sulivan.  Sorry, I really do think the poetry mentioned in this game has a fairly deep meaning... and, at any rate, it has helped me reconcile to the endings (without a complex indoctrination theory)... and I still think, that's a good thing.

The mere presence of poetry doesn't indicate anything. It's quite likely that Ashley's writer put the Ulysses stuff in because she thought it had application to the story, but that would've worked for any heroic story, and since they had no idea of the end of ME3 when they made ME1 (they admitted that), it's impossible for me to read it as anticipating Shepard's death. Apart from that, not everyone romanced Ashley.

Regarding Mordin, that was a little bit of innocent fun in-between. I liked it, but it's most likely something Mordin's writer thought up on his own, possibly even together with his voice actor, because not every VA can sing.

I guess what I'm saying is that whatever application all this poetry might've had, it wasn't coordinated at the project lead level and wasn't part of the critical elements carefully reviewed or written by the lead writers.

It has made the story better, I agree with you about that, and for me it doesn't really matter if application is intentional or not, because I think things aren't as simple as "the writer writers, the reader consumes". Reading a story, or playing one, is re-creating the story in your mind using the elements presented by the writer. It's never mere consumption, you always put things of your own in. In fact, the only reason I tend to wonder about the writers' intentions in ME3 is that the picture is so utterly confusing. I don't think I've ever read, watched or played a story where the elements from which the ending scenario was constructed were so utterly contradictory in terms of the value I could reasonably associate with them.

In one of her posts abovethread. beccatoria wondered if it's possible to create a story that engages with the idea of meaninglessness. With ME3's endings and the confusing messages the trilogy acquired with them, I think it's quite possible to read the ME trilogy as a story that does exactly that.

[Iakus]

The mere presence of poetry doesn't indicate anything. It's quite likely that Ashley's writer put the Ulysses stuff in because she thought it had application to the story, but that would've worked for any heroic story, and since they had no idea of the end of ME3 when they made ME1 (they admitted that), it's impossible for me to read it as anticipating Shepard's death. Apart from that, not everyone romanced Ashley.
 

I believe her writer wanted her to quote from Heinlein's "Green Hills of Earth" but Bioware couldn't get the rights in time.

[UpUpAway]

The mere presence of poetry doesn't indicate anything. It's quite likely that Ashley's writer put the Ulysses stuff in because she thought it had application to the story, but that would've worked for any heroic story, and since they had no idea of the end of ME3 when they made ME1 (they admitted that), it's impossible for me to read it as anticipating Shepard's death. Apart from that, not everyone romanced Ashley.

Regarding Mordin, that was a little bit of innocent fun in-between. I liked it, but it's most likely something Mordin's writer thought up on his own, possibly even together with his voice actor, because not every VA can sing.

I guess what I'm saying is that whatever application all this poetry might've had, it wasn't coordinated at the project lead level and wasn't part of the critical elements carefully reviewed or written by the lead writers.

It has made the story better, I agree with you about that, and for me it doesn't really matter if application is intentional or not, because I think things aren't as simple as "the writer writers, the reader consumes". Reading a story, or playing one, is re-creating the story in your mind using the elements presented by the writer. It's never mere consumption, you always put things of your own in. In fact, the only reason I tend to wonder about the writers' intentions in ME3 is that the picture is so utterly confusing. I don't think I've ever read, watched or played a story where the elements from which the ending scenario was constructed were so utterly contradictory in terms of the value I could reasonably associate with them.

In one of her posts abovethread. beccatoria wondered if it's possible to create a story that engages with the idea of meaninglessness. With ME3's endings and the confusing messages the trilogy acquired with them, I think it's quite possible to read the ME trilogy as a story that does exactly that.

 

Well, the imagery is there and I'm interpreting it for myself.  It's not "wrong" to interpret something that's there in the game.  You can ignore if want.  I don't have to.  You can interpret it for yourself in any way you'd like... I really don't see any point in discussing it further here... you're obviously just interesting in telling me I've got it wrong.

[UpUpAway]

I believe her writer wanted her to quote from Heinlein's "Green Hills of Earth" but Bioware couldn't get the rights in time.

 

... doesn't matter... I'd still rather base my interpretation on what actually made it into the game rather than on what didn't.  Interesting though - Wikipedia says that "Green Hills of Earth" has been sung to 'Ghost Riders in the Sky."  Still, would rather interpret ME3 based on what made it into the game (as misguided as my interpretation seems to be to everyone).  Don't see a point in discussing it further, really.  Won't be back.

[MrFob]

I don't really want to get in between you two here, but am I correctly reading that the moral ambiguity depended on an ambiguous physical reality? So it'd be ambiguous even for a straight-up utilitarian because we didn't know what the specific utility payoffs were in the different choices, even after the fact

 

To answer your first question: You can see it that way (and I guess a utilitarian would probably) but that's not what I meant. For me the moral ambiguity arises from the fact that for each of the endings, I have to betray the ethics that have (successfully) guided my life so far (see my long post above). Thus, they are all immoral in my eye and therefore, there is no "right choice". Hence the ambiguity (I am actually not sure if this is exactly the right term to use here, not a native speaker myself).

 

As for your second question, If I had to infer, then logically, I'd probably answer this "yes" (at least in the original cut) but I am not utilitarian, so I guess to find out for sure you'd have to ask one.

[Get Magna Carter]

To answer your first question: You can see it that way (and I guess a utilitarian would probably) but that's not what I meant. For me the moral ambiguity arises from the fact that for each of the endings, I have to betray the ethics that have (successfully) guided my life so far (see my long post above). Thus, they are all immoral in my eye and therefore, there is no "right choice". Hence the ambiguity (I am actually not sure if this is exactly the right term to use here, not a native speaker myself).

 

As for your second question, If I had to infer, then logically, I'd probably answer this "yes" (at least in the original cut) but I am not utilitarian, so I guess to find out for sure you'd have to ask one.

I Would use a different term like "moral dilemna" for the ending decision

(moral ambiguity describes an action where there is no clear answer as to whether it is moral or immoral - typically used when evil methods are used to achieve a good/noble result)

the dilemna being that you are required to choose, based on your own beliefs, hopes and fears, the least of 3 evils

but even when you choose the least of evils, you are still choosing evil

which is bad

 

Worse, the only option to think outside the box and try to find another answer is not in the original release and Shepard is punished for trying to evade his/her responsibility in picking one of 3 options presented by Shepard's arch-enemy as an approach to resolving the arch-enemy's problem rather than Shepard's problem