javierabegazo wrote...
I can't feel remorse for having killed something that was out to kill me. That's just called "Survival" and "Instincts"
instincts!?!?
* in sean connery voice*
"the names Begazo, Javier Begazo."
javierabegazo wrote...
I can't feel remorse for having killed something that was out to kill me. That's just called "Survival" and "Instincts"
SandTrout wrote...
I would feel no remorse for shooting someone dead that was breaking into my home, attempting to rob/kill me, or if I can determine beyond reasonable doubt that they 'deserve it'(primarily murderers on this point).
Modifié par didymos1120, 21 juillet 2011 - 01:45 .
not neccesarily. if you've gotten into a serious fight before, you'll know what I mean when I say that there is sometimes a short period at the end where you aren't sure if the other guy is alive or not. That pretty much tells you what your reaction would be.didymos1120 wrote...
Or at least you think you wouldn't. But until you actually are faced with having to kill another human being and then proceed to do so, you can't know how you'll react emotionally. None of us who haven't been in such situations can. It's not exactly uncommon for people to still feel awful about killing, even when they know intellectually that it was entirely justified and that they had no other choice if they wanted to live. For instance, ask some WWII vets who fought in the European theater what they thought about having to kill the kids as young as 12 or 13 years old that the ****s pressed into service in the last days of the war. I somehow doubt they were all OK with it, despite the fact said kids were often highly effective defenders who couldn't be ignored. In fact, I know they weren't all OK with it, because I've seen interviews with WWII vets who said as much. Some of them still aren't entirely reconciled to it.
Skirata129 wrote...
yeah, people often seem to misidentify sociopathy as psychopathy...
Modifié par didymos1120, 21 juillet 2011 - 01:58 .
iOnlySignIn wrote...
It's often not enough that enemies are "bad guys". Not enough that the protagonist is a professional soldier/killer like Shepard. To make us players kill enemies without the slightest remorse in games, enemies have to be dehumanized. 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).
The Mass Effect series is no different. In ME1, 90% of the enemies are Geth. Just robots. Not even alive. So killing them is no more murder than trashing an old toaster. In ME2, the Collectors are bugs. Unable to speak unless possessed, only making gurgling noises (like the Geth). Mordin even assures us that they can't be saved: "Protheans dead long ago, Collectors just final insult", and Shepard personally said that "killing a Collector is probably doing it a favor". As for the mercs, well it's their job to kill/be killed for money, so you are free to feel no remorse whatsoever for them.
What I wonder is how are we going to feel completely remorseless for killing so many Cerberus agents in ME3. For all we know, despite being indoctrinated/brainwashed/misled into opposing Shepard, the majority of them could be like the Cerberus crew we meet in ME2: either well-meaning people who genuinely believe they joined Cerberus to help humanity (like Miranda, Jacob, Rupert), or some one who's largey clueless about what Cerberus did (like Kelly, Ken & Gabby).
My question is how will BioWare makes us NOT feel sorry for killing these people, even if they are hidden behind masks/shields/mechs. They are not just killer robots like the Geth, or mindless zombies like the Husks or the Collectors. They are people. Human. Most likely no more morally corrupt or despicable than Shepard or anyone on Shepard's team.
Shepard, whether Paragon or Renegade, never expressed any regret for killing any enemy. Let's see that change in ME3. Let's hope that is one of the "more emotional sides" of the Commander that we'll see.