72 réponses à ce sujet

[JBONE27]

The Free Jaffa wrote...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

"Or the one."

[JBONE27]

All Dead wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

 I think Bioware wanted to make ME1 players feel like Balak in this DLC.
 The whole time I was thinking to myself, how am I any better?  Bioware,
congradulations on making a DLC that not only referenced a previous
one, but puts the player on the other side of the conflict.
 BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Yep! Exactly why I thought Arrival was undeservingly underrated by critics and fans when it came out. And I feel the people who complained that they weren't given an option to not destroy the system had missed the point.

 There were three things I really didn't like about Arrival.  1.  You couldn't save anyone, I would have at least like to have the chance to save some of the people working on the asteroid.  2.  No Joker.  I just wanted to hear him saying something like, "Welcome aboard," instead of some unnamed guy.  3.  You spent half the time asleep.  I mean, you started out with just over 2 days, and you were only awake for about 45 minutes of it.

[Gabey5]

BluSoldier wrote...



balak  wanted to destroy the human planet becuase he thought he was doing what was best for his people, just like how shepard is doing what he thinks is best for his.

thinks? more like knows.. balak was a terrorist, shepard was  preventing galactic genocide

Modifié par Gabey5, 03 septembre 2011 - 09:01 .

[Gterror]

The PLC wrote...

Arrival wins because of it's soundtrack.

Yeah soundtrack was totally top-notched in Arrival.
Regarding to OP point :Intresting viewpoint

[TuringPoint]

I'm sad they haven't released Arrival's soundtrack.

[eternalnightmare13]

 Calling Shepard a terrorist is like calling George Washington a terrorist.

[AClockworkMelon]

BluSoldier wrote...

I'm not going to say that Shepard is evil or anything like that, but the way his plan was executed was almost identical to Balak's.

You might as well be saying that a criminal and a police officer are the same because they both use the same "plans" for their guns: Point and shoot. 

Fact is, Balak was pissed at humans so he decided to take it out on a planet full of 'em. Shepard, meanwhile, is faced with either dooming the population AND stopping the reapers or simply dooming the population. Not really a decision at all. 

[Angmir]

People dont uderstand that morals are relevant too - what we deem good and evil worthy and unworthy is a result of our upbringing and social standards surrounding us.

Evryone thinks that it is we who stand moral higher ground but the other side thinks that too.
In the end only thing that mathers are actions and not resons or morals leading to them.

Shepard did the same what Balak failed to do.

OP made a great point - this is an exelent thread

Ancient Greek outstandind historian Thucydides once said:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Modifié par Angmir, 03 septembre 2011 - 12:15 .

[TuringPoint]

Angmir wrote...

People dont uderstand that morals are relevant too - what we deem good and evil worthy and unworthy is a result of our upbringing and social standards surrounding us.

Evryone thinks that it is we who stand moral higher ground but the other side thinks that too.
In the end only thing that mathers are actions and not resons or morals leading to them.

Shepard did the same what Balak failed to do.

OP made a great point - this is an exelent thread

Ancient Greek outstandind historian Thucydides once said:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

I think it is more complicated than that.  That there are even more sides than you seem to suggest.

It is debatable, but highly off topic, to what extent social standards or upbringing affect morals.  

[Alamar2078]

The big difference [as so many have stated] is that Shep is sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Batarians in order to save trillions upon trillions of lives of which I'm sure that at least "billions" are batarians. At least boyscout paragon Shep does

[Hillbillyshep]

"I´m Commander Shepard and this is my favorite thread on BSN".

I thought that Arrival was like Bring Down The Sky 2 and that and the original BDTS were like the prequels for the ME3´s Batarian storyline.

[robarcool]

BluSoldier wrote...

 Hey guys,
    As I'm sure you all know, Arrival was a very emotional DLC.  As Shepard, you have to crash an asteriod into a mass relay, killing hundreds of thousands of Batarians.  Yes, I know that many of you have no sympathy for Batarians, but here me out.  In the mass effect one DLC, Bring down the sky,  Shepard's objective is to prevent an asteroid from chrashing into a human planet, which would kill millions of humans.  As I was playing Arrival, it almost made me feel like a terorist, just like Balak.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________Bring Down The Sky__________________________________________

-Humans are doing asteroid research
-Batarians attack the asteroid and pillage the base
-Balak goes nuts and decides to crash the asteroid into a Human planet Killing millions
-3 Fusion torches activated by batarians and later deactivated by Shepard, saving millions of Humans.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________Arrival__________________________________________________

-Humans are doing anti-Reaper research
-Batarians Capture human research leader (Justified becuase humans are not meant to be in Batarian space)
-Shepard breaks into a Batarian federal prison and breaks human leader out (illigal assault &murder of prison guards)
-Shepard and research leader go back to asteroid base and shepard finds out leader is indoctrinated and has already cancelled her research
-Shepard goes around killing more humans, and eventually activates 3 fusion torches to propell the asteroid into a mass relay, killing hundreds of thousands batarians.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________Conclusion______________________________________________
I understand that Shepard's actions in Arrival are necesary do to the reapers, but does that warrant terrorism?  Balak wanted to destroy the human planet becuase he thought he was doing what was best for his people, just like how shepard is doing what he thinks is best for his.  Both do this by attempting to crash an asteroid into thier intended target (with 3 almost identical fusion torches), and kill many, many innocent civilians.  I know that stopping the reapers is what is most important, but how much of our humanity our we willing to give up.
________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________Bioware________________________________________________
I think Bioware wanted to make ME1 players feel like Balak in this DLC.  The whole time I was thinking to myself, how am I any better?  Bioware, congradulations on making a DLC that not only referenced a previous one, but puts the player on the other side of the conflict.  BRAVO!!!!!!!!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________Exhibit 1___________________________________________________

images.wikia.com/masseffect/images/0/06/FusionTorches.png: Me1 Fusion Torches
www.youtube.com/watch:Skip to 25 seconds for fusion torches.

Well, while Balak was doing this out of hatred, Shepard was doing this to save lives. Also, he/she did this not for humanity but for the entire galaxy. That is the only arguement I can give in Shepard's favor for the actions taken in Arrival.

[robarcool]

JBONE27 wrote...

All Dead wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

 I think Bioware wanted to make ME1 players feel like Balak in this DLC.
 The whole time I was thinking to myself, how am I any better?  Bioware,
congradulations on making a DLC that not only referenced a previous
one, but puts the player on the other side of the conflict.
 BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Yep! Exactly why I thought Arrival was undeservingly underrated by critics and fans when it came out. And I feel the people who complained that they weren't given an option to not destroy the system had missed the point.

 There were three things I really didn't like about Arrival.  1.  You couldn't save anyone, I would have at least like to have the chance to save some of the people working on the asteroid.  2.  No Joker.  I just wanted to hear him saying something like, "Welcome aboard," instead of some unnamed guy.  3.  You spent half the time asleep.  I mean, you started out with just over 2 days, and you were only awake for about 45 minutes of it.

Well, I think they probably did it for saving money. Joker doesn't have anydialogue in  Overlord as well, when the VI uploads to normandy. Similarly, he isn't given any dialogue for the rather small cameo at the end of Arrival. Being thrifty Bioware?

[JBONE27]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

 Calling Shepard a terrorist is like calling George Washington a terrorist.

If you want to get technical, all the founding fathers were terrorists and traitors.  As were Israel's Stern Gang, Scottland's Hilander Army (18th century Highland rebellion), the French Revolutionaries, and all of the Partizan groups in WWII.  They all wanted to generate fear in their enemies so that they would leave their land (rather the land they precived to be theirs).  Shepard however wasn't trying to sew fear into the reapers, (s)he was trying to prevent, or at least delay their attack.

[BluSoldier]

I would like to add that so someone who has no information/does not believe in the reapers, Shepard's actions seem like pro-human, anti Batarian terrorism.

[JBONE27]

Angmir wrote...

People dont uderstand that morals are relevant too - what we deem good and evil worthy and unworthy is a result of our upbringing and social standards surrounding us.

Evryone thinks that it is we who stand moral higher ground but the other side thinks that too.
In the end only thing that mathers are actions and not resons or morals leading to them.

Shepard did the same what Balak failed to do.

OP made a great point - this is an exelent thread

Ancient Greek outstandind historian Thucydides once said:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

 I also think that genetics has something to do with morals.  If morals were purely an end result of upbringing, then morality would be completely unchanged since the advents of agraculture and trade, but the standard of morality does change.  If you look back 100 years, it was completely moral to hold the viewpoint that eugenics was a good thing, and genocide wasn't all that terrible.  200 years before that, slavery was rarely even considered to be a moral issue, rather most people viewed it as an ecconomic one.  My point is that a part of people's morality must be genetic, and therefore able to change over time.

[JBONE27]

robarcool wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

All Dead wrote...

BluSoldier wrote...

 I think Bioware wanted to make ME1 players feel like Balak in this DLC.
 The whole time I was thinking to myself, how am I any better?  Bioware,
congradulations on making a DLC that not only referenced a previous
one, but puts the player on the other side of the conflict.
 BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Yep! Exactly why I thought Arrival was undeservingly underrated by critics and fans when it came out. And I feel the people who complained that they weren't given an option to not destroy the system had missed the point.

 There were three things I really didn't like about Arrival.  1.  You couldn't save anyone, I would have at least like to have the chance to save some of the people working on the asteroid.  2.  No Joker.  I just wanted to hear him saying something like, "Welcome aboard," instead of some unnamed guy.  3.  You spent half the time asleep.  I mean, you started out with just over 2 days, and you were only awake for about 45 minutes of it.

Well, I think they probably did it for saving money. Joker doesn't have anydialogue in  Overlord as well, when the VI uploads to normandy. Similarly, he isn't given any dialogue for the rather small cameo at the end of Arrival. Being thrifty Bioware?

I know, but there wasn't really any room for dialogue outside of the main cast in LotSB, and while I do have my critisims about that one (Liara doesn't join your sqad perminantly, there isn't a nod to the information you gave or did not give the Shadow Broker in ME1 [seriously one choice in the dialogue wheel, and ten minutes of recording per actor], it really didn't matter who you brought with you for the final showdown), but overall it was the best DLC that I've ever seen.  As for Overlord... I didn't really like this DLC.  I liked the exploration, but it didn't seem to serve any purpose other than to say... "Cerberus is a pack amoral douschebags who just want to use you, as they've used this autistic guy."  I've only played through it once, but that was enough to form an oppinion.
It is one freaking line that could have been done over the phone.  The distortion caused by recording it from the phone may have actually given some authenticity to the line.

[Angmir]

JBONE27 wrote...
 I also think that genetics has something to do with morals.  If morals were purely an end result of upbringing, then morality would be completely unchanged since the advents of agraculture and trade, but the standard of morality does change.  If you look back 100 years, it was completely moral to hold the viewpoint that eugenics was a good thing, and genocide wasn't all that terrible.  200 years before that, slavery was rarely even considered to be a moral issue, rather most people viewed it as an ecconomic one.  My point is that a part of people's morality must be genetic, and therefore able to change over time.

My grandfather consides sodomy and homosexual ralations as one of the greatest sins - akt of highest depravity
and evil.

For me it is disgusting but i tolerate it as long as i dont have to be involved in this in any way.

But my grandsons (hypotetical ;p) probably wound even conside it any diffrent than normal, they would lough about like we now lough about tales of our grandfathers that 100 years ago children could not eat with they parrents by the same table...

500 years ago there were good people who considered thamselfs good nad pure while burning the Witches on the stakes.

Truth is thet the social impact on the morals is greatly underestimated and not the otherwise.

Just look what happens in Libia and in Iraq

- when Arabs attack Ameerican that invaded them  - it is akt of terrorism

- when Arabs attack Libyan gowermen in the same manner - it is called uprizing from Tyrany and fight for freedom ...

I see only that in Lybia they attacked they lawfull goverment (well at least acording to their laws), and in iraq they attacked invading ocupation goverment - looking just on this mather  I say people of Iraq are more rightfull

but i dont whant to get into some global politics qarel.
From philosophical point of view our current western world democracy isnt better than any other kind of gowerment there was. it is just the difrent kind of enslavement not less ruthless nor more justified.

Modifié par Angmir, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:22 .