286 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

khevan wrote...

In Arrival, you have the chance, not to stop the Reapers, but to give the galaxy some time.  Time to prepare, time to set up whatever defenses they can, move civilians to uncharted and unregistered locations (to make it harder for the Reapers to find, etc).  By destroying the Mass Relay, Shepard does indeed cause the deaths of those 300k beings.  But he has to weigh those 300k vs the trillions in the rest of the galaxy.  This is the Hiroshima question writ large, and without a guarantee of success....but there was no guarantee of success during WWII, either.  The chance that those 300k deaths could save multitudes more is worth it. 

To add briefly to this, it also means less time that the Reapers have to actually commit their genocide and more time/energy spent simply traveling to reach our galaxy, making them weaker in the process.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 juin 2011 - 05:31 .

[Godak]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Godak wrote...
I believe he said that he would stop him, even if the hostage must die. Indeed, he just said that killing the 300K was quite possibly a necessary evil.

It sounded to me like he'd deal with the attacker rather than the stranger. I could have misinterpreted.

I actually had to read it twice, myself.

Gosh darn words. <_<

[AlanC9]

Virginian wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Matters to who? Not the dead.

Matters to the race of the batarian species, assuming they care about such matters. Matters to the Alliance since Shepard was working for them on that mission. Nothing matters to the dead unless they are undead and are more than zombies.

Sure. But those are political quesitons as opposed to moral questions.

[AlanC9]

khevan wrote...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, horribly tragic events.  But it would have been sooo much worse to have attempted a land invasion of Japan, and Japan wouldn't have surrendered without such an invasion.  There are estimates that perhaps as many as a million or more Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion, not to mention the Allied troops that would have fallen.  Which is the right decision to make?  It's arguable that dropping the bombs saved lives, as terrible as they were, which makes them the right choice. 

The only thing I'd add to this is that whatever moral line is supposed to ahve been crossed there, we had alrady crossed it months earlier. Unlesss it's somehow worse to nuke civilians than it is to drop napalm on them.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 juin 2011 - 05:43 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
...

Virginian wrote...
...

khevan wrote...
...

Nothing matters to the dead. They're dead.

The importance of genocide to those left behind is not political. It is a matter of mass murder.

The Bataarians (and those of the other 215000) are well within their rights to care that Sheperd killed those people.

The distinction between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that those killed were enemy civilians. In this imaginary scenario, those that were killed were not just civilians, they were completely uninvolved 3rd party civilians.

Killing in self defense means that you are killing the person/group that is attacking you. Killing anyone other than that person/group is not self defense.

Sheperd killed those people. Not the Reapers.

He did it for profit, if not for his own personal profit.

He gave trillions a little more time to prepare for the Reapers, which was the profit.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LuPoM wrote...

Zaeed and Hammerhead were free, I wonder why you even mentioned Zaeed there oO

If I was supposed to get those for free, then no one told me about it.

Perhaps you should have been paying attention instead of complaining, that stuff came out over a year ago now. At the end of they day, why on earth would Bioware be giving you all their DLC for free? A team of people have to make that, and those people need to be paid for their work and time, therefore it costs money to buy the labours of their work. You wouldnt go into a shop and say to the shopkeeper 'i bought this jacket, so i want you to give me the pants, shirt and tie for free!'. Just because you bought the vanilla game doesnt mean you should automatically get any further additions to it for free.

If you want to be a skinflint and not pay the very few $$/££ it costs for the DLC, at least have the decency not to complain about the fact that you dont want to buy it.

[the_one_54321]

Read the 4th page for a reference to how much I care about your opinion of my decision.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The distinction between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that those killed were enemy civilians. In this imaginary scenario, those that were killed were not just civilians, they were completely uninvolved 3rd party civilians. 

And I'm sure that was great consolation to the Japanese civilians who themselves were not attacking the United States.

Killing in self defense means that you are killing the person/group that is attacking you. Killing anyone other than that person/group is not self defense.

Sheperd killed those people. Not the Reapers.

He did it for profit, if not for his own personal profit.

He gave trillions a little more time to prepare for the Reapers, which was the profit.

You're missing the primary point, which is: mitigating circumstances, as another user brought up. Shepard's role is the only logical one, as those Batarians are dead anyway once the Reapers enter the relay.

[the_one_54321]

Il Divo wrote...
And I'm sure that was great consolation to the Japanese civilians who themselves were not attacking the United States.

They were non-combatants. That does not mean that they were not a threat. Remember all the Rosie-the-riviter girls in the States? Killing civilians is awful, but enemies are enemies in war. War is hell.

Il Divo wrote...
You're missing the primary point, which is: mitigating circumstances, as another user brought up. Shepard's role is the only logical one, as those Batarians are dead anyway once the Reapers enter the relay.

You feel that murdering 300k people to give several trillion people slightly better odds is a justifiable action. I understand. I'm just saying that it's murder.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

This thread has derailed completely off-topic.

[the_one_54321]

Imperium Alpha wrote...
Shepard is nearly in the same boat. If he doesn't destroy the relay and sacrifice 300,000 Batarians, no one would have get a chance of fighting back and the reapers would have won even before anyone on earth or in the galaxy can do something.

Shepard would have been in the same boat if our choice was to nuke two cities in Sweeden in order to stop the war with Japan.

[the_one_54321]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...
This thread has derailed completely off-topic.

The topic and the OP was anyway

I got my answer earlier and this is interesting.

[the_one_54321]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...
Shepard is nearly in the same boat. If he doesn't destroy the relay and sacrifice 300,000 Batarians, no one would have get a chance of fighting back and the reapers would have won even before anyone on earth or in the galaxy can do something.

Shepard would have been in the same boat if our choice was to nuke two cities in Sweeden in order to stop the war with Japan.

Of course we should have bomb Sweeden... In matter of fact all the world except north america should be bomb away.

We don't like the Bataarians, right? Screw 'em.

[JKA_Nozyspy]

For what reason exactly  do you refuse to buy any DLC?

the_one_54321 wrote...

I really don't give a crap if you think my decision is justified or not. I'm not buying the DLC. But I do want to know how that will effect a new game in ME3. That's all there is to it.

Your experience will be significantly reduced and you will not enjoy the game as much. I think if you go and watch Star Wars episodes 1,3,4 and 6 you will still have an idea of what happens inbetween, but then why would you do that anyway?

You know, if you want a thoughtful answer perhaps you could have been a little less belligerent in your original post. The Devs have said time and time again that decisions you make and things that happen in the DLC will carry over or reappear at some point, obviously if you dont play any of that, you are not going to get the full picture of the story as it was intended. If you dont mind missing part of the amazing story arc that Bioware have crafted, then thats up to you, but its your loss.

Imperium Alpha wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...
This thread has derailed completely off-topic.

The topic and the OP was anyway

I got my answer earlier and this is interesting.

I just check a few pages and it's funny how the start was about DLC and it becames Shepard is an **** and killed batarians. (Serisously who cares about Batarians anyway ?) Okay. I could like them but the game put you in a situation where no-one will love Batarian. If people do then they are weird. Killing civilian is not great. But if it's the only solution you don't have choice.

Perhaps the OP just had a bad day and feels like an argument.

Modifié par JKA_Nozyspy, 25 juin 2011 - 09:46 .

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

I think someone with a brain can actually go to YouTube and watch LoTSB and Arrival and will not need to play them anyway x)

True, but its not quite as fun.

[DragonRageGT]

Hmm... some of the DLC are definitely worth the purchase. Some, like the cosmetics or armor/weapons pack are not! I love beating Insanity with what the game gives me and the game gives me good enough to not need extra items that are not for free.

LotSB is a must have, IMHO and I'm very glad I bought it. Particularly for my Liara lover Shepard! =) Other story DLC are not bad too. But I'm curious on how much would cost the game plus ALL DLC's, including those I don't buy and don't need. Anyone good with maths to give me the Total?

[the_one_54321]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Who's complaining? I just want to know what all this stuff is going to do to my game.

They make all this optional stuff and they give you all these extra choices and missions to play if you're willing to pay. That's all well and dandy if you view it as a good thing (I don't). But I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't spit in anyone's face by opting out on these options.

We were given this "option" and I want to know how it's going to play out in the start of my game. It's simple enough.

[the_one_54321]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Who's complaining? I just want to know what all this stuff is going to do to my game.

They make all this optional stuff and they give you all these extra choices and missions to play if you're willing to pay. That's all well and dandy if you view it as a good thing (I don't). But I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't spit in anyone's face by opting out on these options.

We were given this "option" and I want to know how it's going to play out in the start of my game. It's simple enough.

You're awesome !

That was on page 2.