130 réponses à ce sujet

[TexasToast712]

iOnlySignIn wrote...
That's one reason for the prevalence of monsters/zombies as enemies in games, because unconsciously we always regret killing our own kind (or any other really sapient species).

Whatare you talking about? I have a mental list of people I would gladly kill without regret IRL if I knew I could get away with it. I would feel no regret at all for killing some fool who thought he might try to take me out.

[mauro2222]

Well if I was the one shooting, I would probably feel remorse, even if the other wanted to kill me with an atomic bomb.. But Shepard is not a normal and natural human with defined morals, he is a soldier or a killer, for me are the same.

[Drone223]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I actually like it. The distorted voices make them more distinctive and menacing. Like the marines in Half-Life.

But you are also shown the combine replacing orgins with machinary and depriving them of humans emotions and turning them into mindless soilders

[mauro2222]

TexasToast712 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...
That's one reason for the prevalence of monsters/zombies as enemies in games, because unconsciously we always regret killing our own kind (or any other really sapient species).

Whatare you talking about? I have a mental list of people I would gladly kill without regret IRL if I knew I could get away with it. I would feel no regret at all for killing some fool who thought he might try to take me out.

Try it, if you don´t feel any remorse, they you are a psychopath.

[TexasToast712]

mauro2222 wrote...
then you are a psychopath.

Seems most likely.

[Skirata129]

they don't have to be dehumanized. I doubt many people who played COD ever felt pangs of guilt in those cutscenes they had at least once a game where you have to wrestle a knife away from an attacker while staring him in the face the whole time and them either stab him or shoot him at point blank range. Especially in video games, if a killing is justied, most people will feel little to no remorse.

[RocketManSR2]

javierabegazo wrote...

I can't feel remorse for having killed something that was out to kill me. That's just called "Survival" and "Instincts"

This.

Edit: Blowing away Shiala and Rana Thanoptis who were unarmed did make me feel uncomfortable even though I tried to tell myself it's a game and I'm a renegade. It didn't work.

Modifié par RocketManSR2, 20 juillet 2011 - 06:43 .

[Skirata129]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

I can't feel remorse for having killed something that was out to kill me. That's just called "Survival" and "Instincts"

The problem here is that the fight is not even. It's not like Shepard has a trouble *surviving* against enemies so far - Shepard's combat skills are much more superior to any opponent.

With Cerberus agents for example, Shepard could have knocked them out instead of killing them. Why is that never an option? Killing a Collector is doing it a favor, OK, but how is killing a human whose only crime is working for Cerberus, something you yourself have done, along with most of your closest friends?

An you are expressing a sentiment that I despise whole heartedly. In America there have been cases where a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon was attacked by a knife wielding assailant and they shot and killed the attacker. Then they were prosecuted either in the criminal courts or sued by the attacker's family because the fight was not fair. fights ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR. in a life and death struggle, you do what you have to to stay alive. I don't care if you have a vulcan and the person attacking you has a high powered pellet pistol, if they try to kill you and take your life, respond in kind and use whatever means availible to take them down.

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure I buy the premise of the thread. We killed tons of humans, krogan, etc. in ME1 and ME2.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juillet 2011 - 07:02 .

[PlumPaul93]

Because they would be husks and or other abominations that are trying to kill shepard? Didn't bother me in ME1 or 2 so IDK why I'd care for ME3.

[pablodurando]

It's just a videogame, lol. But Op if you examine each race in depth you find that killing geth and collectors(I'm stretching it here) could be morally equivalent to killing a human. The gaming community though generally just sees good and evil. Good lives and evil dies, that's more justification than most gamers actually need.

[Scorpion1O1]

I fully support this discussion and understand your (OP's) view point. Ethics plays a major role in many aspects of the games, however when it comes to enemy engagement there are no stun settings or something similar. Unfortunately there are many arguments for making one feel sympothy for all the enemies Shepard has killed. The Geth are not just robots they are a race themselves and just because something is a machine doesn't justify in killing them so easily. Humans are machines too just, only we are bio-chemical and Geth are mechanical. Collectors as well—I find it quite lazy to just brush off the saving of the Collectors so quickly, there are always possibilities and the final termination of the Collector/Prothean species was done pretty casually.

Shepard is a marine, a highly trained one and if you personally know marines and how they are conditioned I'm surprise how Shepard even knows what diplomacy even means. But ME is another time, but keep in mind what Shepard is. I hope that the Mass Effect franchise evolves to a more civilized state but it's not there yet. In Arrival we have already experienced killing indoctrinated humans and I see BioWares only solution to desensitize the player is to keep the enemy's helmets on and I see no sign of any change in that technique. Again if there was no "player" in the equation, Shepard (considering his possible training and conditioning as a marine) would not give a seconds thought into killing another life to defend himself, his squad, people, race etc.

All I can do as a participant in this story is take any precaution, learn all I can in every situation and make the best discussion that not costs more lives. I saved the Rachni queen, I I'm against the genophage, I didn't destroy the heretics etc. I do what I can to take that killing machine Shepard and make him a evolved, thoughtful, compassionate and civilized person.

Also from some of the replies of read it reenforces that our society today is barely out of the jungle

Modifié par Scorpion1O1, 20 juillet 2011 - 07:13 .

[Skirata129]

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Also from some of the replies of read it reenforces that our society today is barely out of the jungle

Not so. Some people believe that violence is evil in and of itself, which is untrue. It is simply a means of achieving an objective.

[mauro2222]

Skirata129 wrote...

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Also from some of the replies of read it reenforces that our society today is barely out of the jungle

Not so. Some people believe that violence is evil in and of itself, which is untrue. It is simply a means of achieving an objective.

The easy path for those who lack patience and willingness.

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Also from some of the replies of read it reenforces that our society today is barely out of the jungle

Not so. Some people believe that violence is evil in and of itself, which is untrue. It is simply a means of achieving an objective.

The easy path for those who lack patience and willingness.

People who believe violence is the easiest path don't understand it. like anything else it can be utilized as a shortcut of course, but often it is the only appropriate and reasonable course of action that would lead to a desirable outcome. The American Revolutionary War, WWII, any of Simon Bolivar's numerous campaigns, ect.

[mauro2222]

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Skirata129 wrote...

Scorpion1O1 wrote...

Also from some of the replies of read it reenforces that our society today is barely out of the jungle

Not so. Some people believe that violence is evil in and of itself, which is untrue. It is simply a means of achieving an objective.

The easy path for those who lack patience and willingness.

People who believe violence is the easiest path don't understand it. like anything else it can be utilized as a shortcut of course, but often it is the only appropriate and reasonable course of action that would lead to a desirable outcome. The American Revolutionary War, WWII, any of Simon Bolivar's numerous campaigns, ect.

I can let you name Revolutions because most of them claim for freedom and rights, but wars, please... and mostly WWII, hell of world business.

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...

I can let you name Revolutions because most of them claim for freedom and rights, but wars, please... and mostly WWII, hell of world business.

Huh? WWII was indisputably a war against a group of nations that would have used their dominance to limit freedoms, subjugate those they deemed inferior and eliminate any voice of dissent.  And if you want a more ancient example of violence bringing the only desirable outcome, the Mongols are perfect. Though after their conquest of china they lost the moral high ground, the initial conquest was perfectly justifiable. Chinese diplomats had been propogating war between the tartars and mongols for centuries to keep the tribes in check, and Genghis Khan's war against them was the only way to break the cycle. he did go a bit overboard with the killing of course, but it is arguably one of the biggest reasons he won.

Modifié par Skirata129, 20 juillet 2011 - 08:14 .

[mauro2222]

Skirata129 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

I can let you name Revolutions because most of them claim for freedom and rights, but wars, please... and mostly WWII, hell of world business.

Huh? WWII was indisputably a war against a group of nations that would have used their dominance to limit freedoms, subjugate those they deemed inferior and eliminate any voice of dissent.  And if you want a more ancient example of violence bringing the only desirable outcome, the Mongols are perfect. Though after their conquest of china they lost the moral high ground, the initial conquest was perfectly justifiable. Chinese diplomats had been propogating war between the tartars and mongols for centuries to keep the tribes in check, and Genghis Khan's war against them was the only way to break the cycle. he did go a bit overboard with the killing of course, but it is arguably one of the biggest reasons he won.

WWII was a business, Hitler rise to power was supported by ally countries, the bombardment of london was supported by Standar oil, Japan attack was wanted... is business, banquers and owners of armaments companies get richer with wars.

Mongols wars? If we roll back that much in time, well we could say that making wars to kidnappe womans is justified too.

[easyt3hremember]

Luc0s wrote...

I've played many WW2 shooters in my life and I can tell you that I enjoyed shutting up those German bastards with a bullet between the eyes every single time. Who cares that these Germans were just humans with fathers, sons, wifes and children in real-life? This is a game goddamnit, this ain't no real-life!

Dehumanizing the enemies is really unnecessary. It's bull****. Especially when you don't even take the effort to dehumanize every single enemy. There are still plenty of human enemies left in Mass Effect that scream like a little baby when they're set on fire (and boy do I love it to hear a Blue Sun soldier scream like a mad-man when I set him/her on fire with 'incendiary rounds').

Agreed, It's quite fun the melee the Eclipse merc vanguards..., after all its just a video game.

[Skirata129]

mauro2222 wrote...
WWII was a business, Hitler rise to power was supported by ally countries, the bombardment of london was supported by Standar oil, Japan attack was wanted... is business, banquers and owners of armaments companies get richer with wars.

Mongols wars? If we roll back that much in time, well we could say that making wars to kidnappe womans is justified too.

Hitler was not supported, but he was not opposed until his invasion of poland due to allied post war guilt. and by standard oil do you mean the Middle eastern nations? considering that many allies had colonies in this area it wouldn't suprise me. Also, it was understandable if america wanted japan to attack. they had decided on neutrality before that, btu the countries being attacked were by and large our allies, while Germany was attempting to convince mexico to go to war with America. Who would you have sided with. Japan did strike the first blow however, making WWII a defensive one. and you actually just agreed with me. War is a business, an extension of diplomacy. the costs are just different is all.

Modifié par Skirata129, 20 juillet 2011 - 08:32 .

[Skirata129]

double post

Modifié par Skirata129, 20 juillet 2011 - 08:31 .

[mauro2222]

Oops I forget the Union Banking Corp