Aller au contenu

Photo

Let me save them.

Débuté par AdmiralCheez , oct. 07 2011 05:44

4309 réponses à ce sujet

#3876
Someone With Mass
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:24

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 560 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yeah, you'll just move your entire civilization. That's not very practical, you know. It as the widespread use of the geth that made them dangerous. You can't just separate the populations because the geth are important in keeping your civilization functioning in the first place.

Even just shutting them down and having all the geth switch off was going to cause a lot of problems.

Not to mention, as I explained, evacuating your people may have provoked the geth to attack anyway. After all, maybe you are evacuating your people so you can unleash hell without killing them?


Okay, stop trying to make attempting to shut down the geth without hesitation, warning or preparation sound like a good idea. Because it wasn't.

#3877
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:26

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Arcian wrote...

If you think survival was the motivating factor behind their attack, you need to stop being a tool.


Oh I'm sorry, what other motive was there?

Arican wrote...

The geth was an economic, military and social crutch that the quarians had grown dependant on,


It was a boon, not a crutch.

The geth were going to destroy their society (in a manner of speaking) no matter what be it peaceful, as you say, or violent. However a violent separation would potentially kill off their entire species. So what is it about at this point, survival and trying to minimize loss or just economics? I don't know where you are getting this from. There was no possible way for them to get out of this WITHOUT a wrecked economy but deactivating the geth before they could become more of a threat might at least have saved their lives.

Survival.

Arican wrote...

The most logical reason they attacked the geth was because their departure would have bumped them down below the other non-council species.


This is ridiculous.  Read above.

Arican wrote...

Either way they were doomed, but the path they chose cost them most of their species. That was their greatest mistake, and because of the costs, I cannot support what they did.


Arcian, you can't have this both ways. If the quarians were going to lose out either way then clearly there was no economic motive for their actions. The quarians moved against the geth to protect themselves.

As an aside, even if they did do it for the reasons you suggested (which they didn't as it makes no sense), that would still be an action motivated by survival.

#3878
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:26

Guest_Cthulhu42_*
  • Guests

Arcian wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

You see, Arcian, you don't even understand the issue. You think the quarians are wrong merely because they attacked first. Then you go on to say that if the geth had attacked the first the quarians would thus be "right" because they'd be victims. Well, if the geth attacked first the quarians might not have even survived. They scarcely survived even when they got the first strike in the war.

What would your stance be if the quarians had let the geth strike first and the geth totally wiped the quarians out down to the last man?

Would you say they "died with honor"?

What good would that do the quarians? Would good would anything do the quarians if they were wiped out?

Like I said, you don't understand the issue at hand here if this is what it hinges on for you. You don't understand that the priority for the quarians, as for any species or nation, is survival. It is NOT the moral highground. The moral highground ceases to be desirable when it means the death of your civilization. Survival is what matters and survival is what the quarians told. Their leaders were morally obligated to choose survival.

If you think survival was the motivating factor behind their attack, you need to stop being a tool.

The geth was an economic, military and social crutch that the quarians had grown dependant on, and the departure of the geth - the PEACEFUL departure of the geth, mind you - would have destroyed their society just as badly as the Morning War did, with the exception billions of wartime casualties and property damage costs in the trillions.

The most logical reason they attacked the geth was because their departure would have bumped them down below the other non-council species. They might have been forced to become a client species like the volus. Maybe they thought it would send a message to the other species that they still had the power to defend their own interests. Maybe they thought they could salvage the situation. Maybe they were just really desperate and not thinking clearly.

Either way they were doomed, but the path they chose cost them most of their species. That was their greatest mistake, and because of the costs, I cannot support what they did. And unlike you, I don't intend to help them make that mistake again.

How would shutting down or destroying all the geth have been any better for the quarians economically than if the geth all just left? I don't see that as being their main motivation for starting the war.

#3879
Killjoy Cutter
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:26

Killjoy Cutter
  • Members
  • 6 005 messages

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Sure sounds like "death for impact" from here.


Have you ever read a book before? Why do the people in the book die?


Gee, I hope I've read a book before, or all these bookshelves behind me are wasted space... 


As for your other question, it depends.  Sometimes, it's necessary to the story the writer is trying to tell.  Sometimes, it's because the writer was being formulaic, or being an arse.


So, someone dying in a game COULD be necessary? Is that possible?


And I mentioned a story-necessary set of deaths that occurs in a Bioware game -- Duncan, Cailen, and the Grey Wardens at Ostagar.  It's an entirely different story if the events at Ostagar don't happen as they do.   

However, so far, no one on this thread is talking about wanting story-necessary deaths, they're talking about deaths for "realism" and "impact". 

#3880
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:29

Guest_Cthulhu42_*
  • Guests

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

And I mentioned a story-necessary set of deaths that occurs in a Bioware game -- Duncan, Cailen, and the Grey Wardens at Ostagar.  It's an entirely different story if the events at Ostagar don't happen as they do.   

However, so far, no one on this thread is talking about wanting story-necessary deaths, they're talking about deaths for "realism" and "impact". 

What do you think you're doing, trying to bring this thread back on topic? We're talking about geth and quarians now!:P

Modifié par Cthulhu42, 23 octobre 2011 - 12:30 .

#3881
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:29

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Someone With Mass wrote...

Okay, stop trying to make attempting to shut down the geth without hesitation, warning or preparation sound like a good idea. Because it wasn't.


Except it was a good idea. I don't have to try and make it "sound" good because it is a perfectly rational course of action. You just admitted. Then you allowed your personal  bias against me shift you away from it. Such a pity that you lack wisdom in this way.

Rational arguments and facts mean nothing to you, as is the case for most people. Someday maybe you'll wisen up and reach my level awareness.

#3882
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:32

Guest_Catch This Fade_*
  • Guests

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

And I mentioned a story-necessary set of deaths that occurs in a Bioware game -- Duncan, Cailen, and the Grey Wardens at Ostagar.  It's an entirely different story if the events at Ostagar don't happen as they do.   

However, so far, no one on this thread is talking about wanting story-necessary deaths, they're talking about deaths for "realism" and "impact". 

What do you think you're doing, trying to bring this thread back on topic? We're talking about geth and quarians now!:P

What was this thread about again?

#3883
FeralEwok
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:33

FeralEwok
  • Members
  • 1 031 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

 Someday maybe you'll wisen up and reach my level awareness.


You are aware that you are talking about the Geth in a thread designed to talk about letting squadmates live, right?

#3884
Someone With Mass
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:35

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 560 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Except it was a good idea. I don't have to try and make it "sound" good because it is a perfectly rational course of action. You just admitted. Then you allowed your personal  bias against me shift you away from it. Such a pity that you lack wisdom in this way.

Rational arguments and facts mean nothing to you, as is the case for most people. Someday maybe you'll wisen up and reach my level awareness.


Ah, yes. Panicking and jumping the button is the most logical course of action in a situation like that. 

Right.

I wouldn't call that "wisdom"

I'd call that "rushing things without trying to thoroughly think them through first" 

Soon you're going to say that Veetor setting the mechs to kill all that moves and locking himself away was the most responsible and logical thing he could've done too.

I think I can live without your level of awareness. In fact, my chances of survival will more than likely increase that way.

Shame that you can't see it any other way than your own.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 23 octobre 2011 - 12:36 .

#3885
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:35

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

FeralEwok wrote...

You are aware that you are talking about the Geth in a thread designed to talk about letting squadmates live, right?


The natural flow of conversation.

#3886
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:36

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Someone With Mass wrote...

Ah, yes. Panicking and jumping the button is the most logical course of action in a situation like that.


I ass, what should they have done?

Are you going to give me an answer?

Should they deactivate the dangerous malfunctioning machine or...? What should they do?

As for Veetor, he's mentally handicapped and not really relevant to this discussion.

#3887
Codyacsmith
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:39

Codyacsmith
  • Members
  • 75 messages
I just want to save everyone I can in the game and that's all I'm asking for.

Also, Saphra, from what I've read in the forums as I lurk, you have a tendency to bring up a debate about the Quarian/Geth war, why is that?

#3888
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:41

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Codyacsmith wrote...

Also, Saphra, from what I've read in the forums as I lurk, you have a tendency to bring up a debate about the Quarian/Geth war, why is that?


Well this is a forum dedicated to Mass Effect. It is a hot-button issue, one of the most interesting and debated in the Mass Effect universe. The only thing more popular is general Paragon/Renegade and back in the day the Collector Base save/destroy debate. It's interesting to me.

#3889
Codyacsmith
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:46

Codyacsmith
  • Members
  • 75 messages
Thanks for the explanation. My curiousity is satisfied.

#3890
Someone With Mass
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:49

Someone With Mass
  • Members
  • 38 560 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

I ass, what should they have done?

Are you going to give me an answer?

Should they deactivate the dangerous malfunctioning machine or...? What should they do?

As for Veetor, he's mentally handicapped and not really relevant to this discussion.


Well, if they knew that it was a potential danger, then why didn't they prepare accordingly?

Isolating the geth and not letting them near vital parts of the society's infrastructure would've been a great start. Or at least attempting it. Subtle changes would've been the key to avoid a large conflict.

I included Veetor, because he also acted a little irrationally while being in panic mode and jeopardized the safety of his friends at the same time.

I don't know. The quarian mind probably works in a different manner compared to the human mind when it comes to situations like this.

#3891
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 12:53

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Someone With Mass wrote...

Well, if they knew that it was a potential danger, then why didn't they prepare accordingly?


They didn't know there was potential danger until they realized what was happening to the geth. It was too late by that point.

"Isolating" the geth doesn't make sense. There were millions of geth spread across multiple worlds. How would they isolate them? Someone With Mass, there is nothing "subtle" about an undertaking on such a huge scale. You are asking every person in the quarian civilization to set aside their geth unit, every factory, every police station, every military base, every power plant, every garbage facility, every space port, every farm... that is just mind boggling.

You also don't think this might tip the geth off anyway? It's a needless step. Save time by just shutting the geth down, then you don't need to isolate them. You're forgetting at this time the quarians didn't realize the geth were capable of resisting. They thought they soon would be, but did not think they had reached that point.

Someone With Mass wrote...

I don't know. The quarian mind probably works in a different manner compared to the human mind when it comes to situations like this.


As far as I can see quarians think and act exactly like humans. That goes for just about every other species. (in all the important ways, anyway)

#3892
Killjoy Cutter
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:24

Killjoy Cutter
  • Members
  • 6 005 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

In lieu of reading post... I don't see why you two are at a stalemate, why not make it possible, but simply rather diifcult, as the name suggests? Best of both worlds.


That means Cheez gets what s/he wants and I get to eat ****. That's not compromise, people. There is no compromise on this issue. Either someone does die or they don't.


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 

#3893
Killjoy Cutter
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:27

Killjoy Cutter
  • Members
  • 6 005 messages

Lizardviking wrote...

Virmire was there to raise the stakes of the main-plot. It was there to show how serious the situation was to the player, not only did it contain "the twist", it also showed that this mission is not just another walk in the park. The opposing force is dangerous, they are not idiots messing around.

In short. Virmire is there to make you realise that **** just got real.


Vermire is where we realize that Bioware decided someone had to die to impress upon the player that **** just got real. 

The binary, forced, unavoidable nature of the thing makes a transparent attempt to create a response in the player. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:28 .

#3894
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:27

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 


Yes. Give us the old Garrus/Tali choice they promised us before ME2 came out.

Or maybe Joker/Anderson.

#3895
Guest_Arcian_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:28

Guest_Arcian_*
  • Guests

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

In lieu of reading post... I don't see why you two are at a stalemate, why not make it possible, but simply rather diifcult, as the name suggests? Best of both worlds.


That means Cheez gets what s/he wants and I get to eat ****. That's not compromise, people. There is no compromise on this issue. Either someone does die or they don't.


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 

Welcome to the world of the pure renegade.

EDIT: Also known as the world of grimdark hats of the ass variety.

Modifié par Arcian, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:29 .

#3896
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:30

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests
I want **** to get real this time because ME2 was such a let-down. The enemy was neutered. This time I want the threat to be real. One squadmate, it's all I ask.

#3897
Killjoy Cutter
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:32

Killjoy Cutter
  • Members
  • 6 005 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 


Yes. Give us the old Garrus/Tali choice they promised us before ME2 came out.

Or maybe Joker/Anderson.


And that's why I'm going to get some reviews of the game before I buy it.  Contrived character death for cheap pseudorealism and "impact" isn't what I'm looking to spend my money on. 

#3898
Guest_Cthulhu42_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:32

Guest_Cthulhu42_*
  • Guests

Saphra Deden wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 


Yes. Give us the old Garrus/Tali choice they promised us before ME2 came out.

Or maybe Joker/Anderson.

Did they actually promise a Garrus/Tali choice at one point? Because that would be an awful choice to make. Regardless, it would be hard to implement in ME3, as some people could have got one or both killed.

As for Joker/Anderson, that could actually work well. Especially since neither are squad mates. That choice could keep both sides of this debate happy.

Modifié par Cthulhu42, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:35 .

#3899
Kaiser Shepard
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:34

Kaiser Shepard
  • Members
  • 7 890 messages

Arcian wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

In lieu of reading post... I don't see why you two are at a stalemate, why not make it possible, but simply rather diifcult, as the name suggests? Best of both worlds.


That means Cheez gets what s/he wants and I get to eat ****. That's not compromise, people. There is no compromise on this issue. Either someone does die or they don't.


So it really comes down to someone dying no matter what for you?  No matter what, someone has to die? 

Welcome to the world of the pure renegade.

EDIT: Also known as the world of grimdark ****s.

We prefer the term "fans of actually decent storytelling".

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 23 octobre 2011 - 01:35 .

#3900
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 01:34

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Did they actually promise a Garrus/Tali choice at one point? Because that would be an awful choice to make. Regardless, it would be hard to implement in ME3, as some people could have got one or both killed.

As for Joker/Anderson, that could actually work well. Especially since neither are squad mates. 



I recall an early trailer for the game thaltl showed Garrus and Tali each sliding down one side of the Normandy, the implication being Shepard could only save one.

Obviously, I don't want the death to be contrived. I've explained at length why it would be good for the plot. Especially in light of ME2's handling of the suicide mission.
Retourner dans General Discussion


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 3
  4. → General Discussion