345 réponses à ce sujet

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

CavScout wrote...
There is no reason to believe it is lying.

You mean except for the part where it's the leader/creator of the enemy that is trying to kill and harvest everyone right?

CavScout wrote...
It would be completely unrealistic to have millions of years of observation erased by weeks of Shepard's experience.

And that is why they should not have made the decision to cut out the conversation wheel when talking to the starchild. If we were given the chance to refute its claims and ask it questions we could have learned what happened in those millions of years. But like I already said, I/Shep wouldn't take ANYthing it says at face value because it is the enemy, and since there is no conversation we don't know either way what happened during those millions of years which leaves us nowhere.

[Tony208]

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Maybe you should look up the definition of genocide, in short it's the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group. That describes to a tee what the Quarians were doing when they were rounding up Geth and killing them.

[Johcande XX]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Johcande XX wrote...

Usually when someone debates on a forum for no other reason than to shake things up, it's akin to trolling.

edit:  nvm noticed your sig.

Please read the whole sentence. By "shake things up," I mean show people that they aren't the only ones here. Show them they aren't the only "loyal" fans.

Was meant as a light hearted jab.    Don't be so touchy.  

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I am a billionaire with wings.

Claim does not equal objective fact.

Tell that to the Indoctrination Theory movement.

In any case, look at the trials for those who were part of things like Bosnia/Kosovo or Rawanda... you'll see claims of self-defense. People tend to rationalize their mass killings.

[Jackal7713]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Johcande XX wrote...

Usually when someone debates on a forum for no other reason than to shake things up, it's akin to trolling.

edit:  nvm noticed your sig.

Please read the whole sentence. By "shake things up," I mean show people that they aren't the only ones here. Show them they aren't the only "loyal" fans.

Yes, but be civil and show some respect for others. Even if you think they're wrong.

[CavScout]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There is no reason to believe it is lying.

You mean except for the part where it's the leader/creator of the enemy that is trying to kill and harvest everyone right?

CavScout wrote...
It would be completely unrealistic to have millions of years of observation erased by weeks of Shepard's experience.

And that is why they should not have made the decision to cut out the conversation wheel when talking to the starchild. If we were given the chance to refute its claims and ask it questions we could have learned what happened in those millions of years. But like I already said, I/Shep wouldn't take ANYthing it says at face value because it is the enemy, and since there is no conversation we don't know either way what happened during those millions of years which leaves us nowhere.

A) Doesn't show that it is lying.
Doesn't change the fact that Shepard would not be able to argue against millions of years of observation. He simply couldn't.

[HenchxNarf]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Yes, but be civil and show some respect for others. Even if you think they're wrong.

I actually think that he is being civil.

[The Angry One]

CavScout wrote...

Tell that to the Indoctrination Theory movement.

In any case, look at the trials for those who were part of things like Bosnia/Kosovo or Rawanda... you'll see claims of self-defense. People tend to rationalize their mass killings.

Except the Geth prove they were telling the truth in ME3.
The Quarians have to be convinced to stand down. The Geth will always stand down once the Quarians do.

[CavScout]

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Maybe you should look up the definition of genocide, in short it's the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group. That describes to a tee what the Quarians were doing when they were rounding up Geth and killing them.

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

[Ad_Hoc]

jarrettwold wrote...

...and this thread has descended into trolling and rage. I'm ditching out on it.

Oh no, this thread is like a soap opera atm, Im at launch break right now, and i wish i had pop corn.

[cerberus1701]

CavScout wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I am a billionaire with wings.

Claim does not equal objective fact.

Tell that to the Indoctrination Theory movement.

In any case, look at the trials for those who were part of things like Bosnia/Kosovo or Rawanda... you'll see claims of self-defense. People tend to rationalize their mass killings.

Yes. And that was the claim of many at Nuremberg as well. However, after objective study of the facts, they still hung or did prison time.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

Despite any Quarian whining to the contrary they started the fight. They did it 300 years ago. And did it again when they thought they could win and finish the job.

[The Angry One]

CavScout wrote...

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

You do realise that the Quarians were killing their own people as well as the Geth?

[SandTrout]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You have a point. However, as I've said before...

We know the Catalyst is thousands and thousands of years old. Thus, I would conclude (sp?) he knows what he's talking about.

So are Sovereign and Harbinger. That hasn't prevented us for trying to kill them and stop their schemes in the previous 2.99 games.

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

In any case, look at the trials for those who were part of things like Bosnia/Kosovo or Rawanda... you'll see claims of self-defense. People tend to rationalize their mass killings.

Yes. And that was the claim of many at Nuremberg as well. However, after objective study of the facts, they still hung or did prison time.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

Despite any Quarian whining to the contrary they started the fight. They did it 300 years ago. And did it again when they thought they could win and finish the job.

They were trying to reclaim their homeworld.

Modifié par CavScout, 28 mars 2012 - 07:37 .

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

But as a writer, you should know that TELLING your audience something is bad. You should show it to them.

Just step back and look at this. We have ME3 constantly, sometimes even forcefully, SHOWING us the sympathetic nature of AI. How they want peace, how they can conjure human emotions, how they change from a hive mind to indivduals. ME3 essentially "humanized" AI. It basically shoved the fact that AI and humanity can live in harmony down our throats..

Then, in the last 5 minutes, we're TOLD that is not true. That is almost objectively bad writing. 

You have a point. However, as I've said before...

We know the Catalyst is thousands and thousands of years old. Thus, I would conclude (sp?) he knows what he's talking about.

From that conclusion, I can compare what we have (X years into this cycle, synthetics and organics seem to be able to coexist peacefully) to what he's saying (synthetics and organics will inevitably conflict).

From that, I can conclude that in the future, sythetics and organics will not be able to coexist.

But this is a story, not a philosophy paper. The fact that the ending is a literary contradiction to what came before should be enough to indict its value.

Look, if instead of long sequences of chasing after a boy, we were given Javik-style flashbacks of mass wars and genocides of machines against organics (preferably the origins of the Catalyst - who created him and after what specific event?), and if the geth/quarian conflict had forced us to choose one or the other, I might have arrived at the ending in a different state of mind. But the way the story is told now, it doesn't make literary sense. Whether or not he makes actual logical sense is a separate issue, I think.

[cerberus1701]

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Maybe you should look up the definition of genocide, in short it's the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group. That describes to a tee what the Quarians were doing when they were rounding up Geth and killing them.

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

Sentient machines.

Yes, the Quarians were exiled. After they lost the fight that they started.

[CavScout]

The Angry One wrote...

CavScout wrote...

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

You do realise that the Quarians were killing their own people as well as the Geth?

We already know organics kill organics, who's arguing otherwise?

[CavScout]

SandTrout wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You have a point. However, as I've said before...

We know the Catalyst is thousands and thousands of years old. Thus, I would conclude (sp?) he knows what he's talking about.

So are Sovereign and Harbinger. That hasn't prevented us for trying to kill them and stop their schemes in the previous 2.99 games.

Understanding =/= Agreement

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

CavScout wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There is no reason to believe it is lying.

You mean except for the part where it's the leader/creator of the enemy that is trying to kill and harvest everyone right?

CavScout wrote...
It would be completely unrealistic to have millions of years of observation erased by weeks of Shepard's experience.

And that is why they should not have made the decision to cut out the conversation wheel when talking to the starchild. If we were given the chance to refute its claims and ask it questions we could have learned what happened in those millions of years. But like I already said, I/Shep wouldn't take ANYthing it says at face value because it is the enemy, and since there is no conversation we don't know either way what happened during those millions of years which leaves us nowhere.

A) Doesn't show that it is lying.
Doesn't change the fact that Shepard would not be able to argue against millions of years of observation. He simply couldn't.

-A Doesn't show that it is NOT lying.  Claims require evidence as proof (which goes back to the 'they should have had additional dialog' idea, hell have godchild open a holoscreen with vids of the past events).
-B is invalid if it IS lying about that observation.

So really Shep has no reason to trust the godchild, but also no reason NOT to, which is where Shep's judgement comes in, or rather it's where it would if we had the dialog wheel, even if arguing was pointless and Shep still only had the same 3 options in the end.

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The genocide was committed against the Quarians... if they wouldn't have fled, they'd all be dead.

What? You can't commit genocide in self-defense.

I am sure pretty much everyone who has comited genocide has claimed self-defense...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Maybe you should look up the definition of genocide, in short it's the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group. That describes to a tee what the Quarians were doing when they were rounding up Geth and killing them.

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

Sentient machines.

Yes, the Quarians were exiled. After they lost the fight that they started.

So justifiable genocide is based on who started it?

[The Angry One]

CavScout wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

CavScout wrote...

I'll bet the definition of genocide doesn't address machines. And lets not forget who was slaughtered to almost extinction and forced into exile. It wasn't the Geth, it was the Quarians.

You do realise that the Quarians were killing their own people as well as the Geth?

We already know organics kill organics, who's arguing otherwise?

That you can't even blame the Quarian's total loss of Rannoch on the Geth. Who knows how much of the population was lost due to civil war because of the belligerent authorities.

[CavScout]

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

CavScout wrote...
A) Doesn't show that it is lying.
Doesn't change the fact that Shepard would not be able to argue against millions of years of observation. He simply couldn't.

-A Doesn't show that it is NOT lying.  Claims require evidence as proof (which goes back to the 'they should have had additional dialog' idea, hell have godchild open a holoscreen with vids of the past events).
-B is invalid if it IS lying about that observation.

So really Shep has no reason to trust the godchild, but also no reason NOT to, which is where Shep's judgement comes in, or rather it's where it would if we had the dialog wheel, even if arguing was pointless and Shep still only had the same 3 options in the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

You need to prove you accusation.

[cerberus1701]

CavScout wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

In any case, look at the trials for those who were part of things like Bosnia/Kosovo or Rawanda... you'll see claims of self-defense. People tend to rationalize their mass killings.

Yes. And that was the claim of many at Nuremberg as well. However, after objective study of the facts, they still hung or did prison time.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.

Despite any Quarian whining to the contrary they started the fight. They did it 300 years ago. And did it again when they thought they could win and finish the job.

They were trying to reclaim their homeworld.

So, what?

That makes Genocide, Part 2 ok?

The only reason they lost their world to begin with was because they tried to exterminate the other intelligent species that then lived there.

You'd think they'd have learned something after all that.