345 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

The Angry One wrote...

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.

We can pretty much say that if the Geth would have just shut-down, no Quarians would have died.

[CronoDragoon]

CavScout wrote...

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 geth were not committing genocide on the quarians. Genocide means that they are being killed because of their belonging to a certain race/ethnicity/etc. The geth were killing quarians because the quarians were attacking them, not because they were quarians.

[Hashbeth]

This thread just jumped straight off the railroad, past the shark, and into the disquieting waters of genocide, indoctrination debate, and other rambling.

*gets up from table and heads out the door*

[CavScout]

cerberus1701 wrote...

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.

And the Geth still stayed there, when they could have left at anytime....

[Slash1667]

CavScout wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

but what about loyal fans who loved the ending?

Don't get the DLC if there is one.

Maybe you shouldn't have bought the game with the ending it has.

When I bought ME3 at 10am on March 6th there was no info on the endings that I could find. Just don't buy the DLC if you like the ending.

Edit

Damn I really should read all the posts before replying.

Modifié par Slash1667, 28 mars 2012 - 07:45 .

[cerberus1701]

CavScout wrote...

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?

Nope. The Geth acted in self-defense. They weren't engaging in genocide. If they had been the Quarians would have been wiped out 300 years ago.

[Gibb_Shepard]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

This. Anyone can make sense of anything by using out of universe logic. I'm going by what is told in the story. What we are shown throughout ME3 is directly contradicted by the ending. You can then talk about how this is an all-knowing being, but we're talking about literature here. It has failed from a literary standpoint. 

[Johcande XX]

Hashbeth wrote...

This thread just jumped straight off the railroad, past the shark, and into the disquieting waters of genocide, indoctrination debate, and other rambling.

*gets up from table and heads out the door*

Honestly, I don't even remember where the thread started.  It was completely hijacked.

It's great isn't it. 

[Catroi]

stop dreaming guys, the game was just rushed nothing more, nothing less

[cerberus1701]

CavScout wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

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.

And the Geth still stayed there, when they could have left at anytime....

Why should they? It was their home, too. Their species was "born" there. They didn't start the war, why should they leave?

[Tony208]

CavScout wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

We can pretty much say that if the Geth would have just shut-down, no Quarians would have died.

What the hell kind of argument is this. I have no idea where you're going.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

CavScout wrote...

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.

No one can prove either side because there is not enough information given in the few minutes of dialog with the godchild.  That is my entire point.  There is no reason for Shep to accept its claims at face value due to it being the antagonist but there is also no reason not to.  The problem is it flies in the face of the theme of self-determination present in the rest of the story.

In theory the godchild could be right due to witnessing millions of years of history, and in theory it could also be wrong because maybe it never 'gave peace a chance' like Shep can try between the Geth and Quarians.  Due to complete lack of information we just can't know.  It's information that should have been there, and it's a dialog wheel that should have been present.

[cerberus1701]

Tony208 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

We can pretty much say that if the Geth would have just shut-down, no Quarians would have died.

What the hell kind of argument is this. I have no idea where you're going.

I think he means  that if they'd just agreed to mass suicide everything would have been cool.

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
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.

Because what they are trying to do--"preserve the organics in Reaper form" or make human slushies--contradicts how we feel about it. We take issue with the very premise of what they are trying to do.

it's the same with the Catalyst. People take issue with the fact that entire species have been slushified to stop them from creating AI, because according to an AI this will eventually cause an organic apocalypse. We disagree with that very premise based on what the series has shown us.

[Kulthar Drax]

CavScout wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

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.

We can pretty much say that if the Geth would have just shut-down, no Quarians would have died.

I can't tell if you're trolling, being serious or...I don't know. But seriously, your argument is that the Geth should have just all shut themselves down (basically commit suicide) just so they didn't hurt the poor Quarians' feelings? I mean, you're saying an intelligent, sentient race should just commit genocide just because another intelligent, sentient race decides that they don't want them there.

Whether they were created or not is besides the point, the Geth had as much right to live as the Quarians, and acting in self defence to prevent their own extinction at the hands of the Quarians is justifiable. And if that means that the only way they can secure their own race's freedom and right to self determination is to forcibly drive the Quarians from their homeworld, then so be it. Rannoch is the Geth's homeworld just as much as it is the Quarians, and they have just as much right to be there.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 28 mars 2012 - 07:54 .

[Ad_Hoc]

CavScout wrote...


You can say the "Geth never wanted" but in the end they did. The Geth didn't have to slaughter and then expell the Quarians. Yet they did.

Actually they had (geth i mean), it was either that or their own destruction, and since
by that time Geth were self-conscious they had no choice but to resist

Modifié par Ad_Hoc, 28 mars 2012 - 07:56 .

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

No one can prove either side because there is not enough information given in the few minutes of dialog with the godchild.  That is my entire point.  There is no reason for Shep to accept its claims at face value due to it being the antagonist but there is also no reason not to.  The problem is it flies in the face of the theme of self-determination present in the rest of the story.

In theory the godchild could be right due to witnessing millions of years of history, and in theory it could also be wrong because maybe it never 'gave peace a chance' like Shep can try between the Geth and Quarians.  Due to complete lack of information we just can't know.  It's information that should have been there, and it's a dialog wheel that should have been present.

This is the issue exactly.

It IS possible for the Catalyst to be right, the issue just needs more explanation. But we can't say that either side is truly right.

This is why "Lots of speculation from everyone" is bad.

[SandTrout]

CavScout wrote...

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

That's the point that we're making against the catalyst. While we can struggle and fight against the Reapers, we're disallowed from doing the same with the Catalyst, which narratively tells the audience/player that the Catalyst is an irrefutable, or absolute, source of truth. Sure, we might understand what he's trying to do, but we should have been able to tell him to get stuffed, as we have been able to do previously with the Reapers.

It's just another example of how out of place the sequence is in the series, and how much of an artistic failure it was. Yes, art can fail, and in this case, it has failed catestrophically.

[SandTrout]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

SandTrout wrote...
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.

Because what they are trying to do--"preserve the organics in Reaper form" or make human slushies--contradicts how we feel about it. We take issue with the very premise of what they are trying to do.

And how is the Catalyst any different, because we're forced to go along with the options it provides, and lack the ability to tell it to get stuffed like we could with Sovy and Harby.

[CronoDragoon]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Mighty_BOB_cnc wrote...

No one can prove either side because there is not enough information given in the few minutes of dialog with the godchild.  That is my entire point.  There is no reason for Shep to accept its claims at face value due to it being the antagonist but there is also no reason not to.  The problem is it flies in the face of the theme of self-determination present in the rest of the story.

In theory the godchild could be right due to witnessing millions of years of history, and in theory it could also be wrong because maybe it never 'gave peace a chance' like Shep can try between the Geth and Quarians.  Due to complete lack of information we just can't know.  It's information that should have been there, and it's a dialog wheel that should have been present.

This is the issue exactly.

It IS possible for the Catalyst to be right, the issue just needs more explanation. But we can't say that either side is truly right.

In Dune, we are given a good reason to believe that the current path of humanity leads to INEVITABLE extermination (by machines likely): the guy who tells us can see the goddamn future. Knowing this, we can more readily accept the disturbing things he puts humanity through to prevent this. I don't get any of this in ME3.