808 réponses à ce sujet

[SilentK]

M0keys wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

At it's core, is it more an issue for whether or not killing that many individual life forms is worth it?

Lets assume that there are 1 million Geth. Genocide would be killing all 1 million of them. Would someone that feels the option is too genocidal be more inclined to make the choice if say, it was 1 million random life forms from throughout the world?

Or if you need something more structured, say 20% Turian, 20% Quarian, 20% Asari, 20% Salarian, and 20% Human?

In all these cases no genocide actually occurs, but the total loss of life is equivalent.

I'd rather not directly kill anyone.

People on my side die when they get involved with war, but never because I choose to kill them when I can save them instead.

My Shepard was a peacekeeper whenever possible. You could say he was like Buddha, but with a gun.

Hmm... it is a difficult choice, but I still believe that is a necessary evil to get rid of the Reapers. And some Shepard's won't even have to worry about destroying the Geth. The Quairans have allready taken care of that. In that case, Shepard is looking at possibly dying himself/herself and EDI. They are told that reaper-tech will be destoyed and that they have it too.  2 deaths given for the galaxy can't be bad odds?

A Shepard who initially lost the Quarians and then lose the Geth in the destroy-ending. They have quite a death-toll after the war is ended. But if it was the Quarians who killed the Geth, then the destroy-ending feels much less difficult to take.

[Allan Schumacher]

M0keys wrote...

I'd rather not directly kill anyone.

People on my side die when they get involved with war, but never because I choose to kill them when I can save them instead.

My Shepard was a peacekeeper whenever possible. You could say he was like Buddha, but with a gun.

I think it's reasonable that a lot of people played their Shepard's this way.  I'd certainly rather not kill anyone if it was unavoidable.  I like that sometimes it isn't.  For me, Shepard is someone that can make this choice.

But I think this ties into people's perspective about the game not really being "winnable" as well.  It's certainly not an ending that makes you go "Woo!"

[kaotician]

 For me, Shepherd only commits genocide in the ME universe itself if it is felt that the Geth are a sentient species with the same rights etc as anyone else. In ME, is there evidence of such a view being described in law? I'm not so sure there is. In short, if there's no crime of murder against machine consciousnesses, how can one commit an act of genocide against them?

[Jacobcus]

kaotician wrote...

 For me, Shepherd only commits genocide in the ME universe itself if it is felt that the Geth are a sentient species with the same rights etc as anyone else. In ME, is there evidence of such a view being described in law? I'm not so sure there is. In short, if there's no crime of murder against machine consciousnesses, how can one commit an act of genocide against them?

Genocide is genocide, whether its a crime or not. When your fighting a war against a race you don't considered it genocide until afterwards, such as it was with the Rachni. Just because they don't see them as a race until ME3, its still considered genocide.

[Verit]

This is basically something I wrote about here (the third point). In my opinion the endings are imbalanced and encourage you to pick them for the wrong reasons. Requiring High EMS to survive is fine, but then it should have been possible to survive in all ending choices. Linking Shepard's survival to destroy only ends up frustrating people for no real reason.

[Skyblade012]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Ieya wrote...

Either way you have a terrible loss of life there - but with the 20-20-20-20-20 option you aren't eradicating a single culture at all.  Every race could survive the loss of 20% of their numbers - but the Geth losing 100% of their numbers destroys them utterly.

Well, unless someone finds the old Quarian data on how they were built in the first place ... although I suppose they'd probably never evolve the same.

Yeah, I was more curious if there was an issue with just the loss of life, or if it's actually the full on genocide that makes people uncomfortable.

I think you could also rationalize that it's easier (and maybe even fair) if the primary races all took a relatively equal hit.  Everyone makes a smaller sacrifice (relatively speaking) than the entire Geth making the ultimate sacrifice.

Thanks!

Of course partial extinction is easier to accept than a full extinction.  Every species can grow and rebuild, even from a handful of survivors.  One asari could spread to repopulate the entire race by melding with various other species (theoretically, not even sentient ones would be needed).  Batarians get to regrow a new culture free from the hegemony and the caste system, even though 95% of their population has been exterminated.  The Hierarchy is intact, and turians can regrow and rebuild.  Quarians are already rebuilding their home.

It's the "sweet" part of bittersweet.  The future, the regrowth.  There is no future for the geth.  You steal it from them.  If even one program survived, if even one archival copy still exists, they can build outward, and live again.  But genocide leaves no future, no growth.

And, perhaps worse, the geth are the only race which can't get a happy ending, in any of the endings.  No matter which ending you choose, you ruin the only thing they ever wanted:  "sovereynté, the ability to make their own decisions".  Even if you choose to exterminate the geth on Rannoch, what is Legion's outrage?  "We will not let you decide our future!"

Yet look at the options availible to Shepard:  Destroy synthetics.  Control Reapers (which, since geth use Reaper code...).  Or force a new evolutionary paradigm upon the universe, doing precisely what Legion argued against in all of ME2, why the geth did not side with the Reapers.  "The journey is as important as the destination.  The heretics accepted the Old Machine's future.  The geth will build their own future."



And if you solved the feud between geth and quarians, you hurt the quarians too.  What happens to the geth units constructing new buildings, or inhabiting quarian suits?  They shut off, taking life support with them, dropping heavy loads causing untold destruction, possibly ruining the quarians forever.


Kill the geth on Rannoch.  At least they can spend their last moments fighting for the future on their own terms.

[kaotician]

Jacobcus wrote...

kaotician wrote...

 For me, Shepherd only commits genocide in the ME universe itself if it is felt that the Geth are a sentient species with the same rights etc as anyone else. In ME, is there evidence of such a view being described in law? I'm not so sure there is. In short, if there's no crime of murder against machine consciousnesses, how can one commit an act of genocide against them?

Genocide is genocide, whether its a crime or not. When your fighting a war against a race you don't considered it genocide until afterwards, such as it was with the Rachni. Just because they don't see them as a race until ME3, its still considered genocide.

No, genocide is genocide if it's recognised as such, and that means legally. To us, in our universe, we see it as genocide, but in the universe of ME AI's are regarded simply as dangerous. They don't have human rights as such, and there's therefore no jusrisdictional grounds for Shepherd either to be tried or even recognised as guilty of genocide in the first place.

To say 'genocide is genocide, whether it's a crime or not' is sadly ridiculous and self-contradictory.

[Beldamon]

I wonder...if the choice had not been killing the Geth, but another species..say you can defeat the reapers, but all Turians have to die...or all Humans?

For those who believe sacrificing the geth would have been acceptable, would one of those other two choices have been as acceptable?

[Allan Schumacher]

Beldamon wrote...

I wonder...if the choice had not been killing the Geth, but another species..say you can defeat the reapers, but all Turians have to die...or all Humans?

For those who believe sacrificing the geth would have been acceptable, would one of those other two choices have been as acceptable?

For myself, I found the Geth to be the easiest race to sympathize with (which is why I think that it's the Geth is meaningful), so I don't think it would have made it any more difficult for me.  I don't know if it would have made it easier for me either.

I posed a similar question earlier, and there are some that believe that they would not be able to choose Destroy regardless of the race, which is fair.  It's tricky to determine because it's all hypothetical haha.  I mean, I doubt I would be able to make such a decision, but Shepard.  He has the chutzpah to make the hard choice.

[CronoDragoon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Beldamon wrote...

I wonder...if the choice had not been killing the Geth, but another species..say you can defeat the reapers, but all Turians have to die...or all Humans?

For those who believe sacrificing the geth would have been acceptable, would one of those other two choices have been as acceptable?

For myself, I found the Geth to be the easiest race to sympathize with (which is why I think that it's the Geth is meaningful), so I don't think it would have made it any more difficult for me.  I don't know if it would have made it easier for me either.

I posed a similar question earlier, and there are some that believe that they would not be able to choose Destroy regardless of the race, which is fair.  It's tricky to determine because it's all hypothetical haha.  I mean, I doubt I would be able to make such a decision, but Shepard.  He has the chutzpah to make the hard choice.

If it was the vorcha, I would have less problem with it. If it was any race that I hadn't just spent 5 hours trying to help, I'd have less problem with it.

[tookrunk1991]

i still dont understand how shepard can live in the red ending when the starchild told you that you would die since shepard is like 90% synthetic since mass effect 2

[mokponobi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Beldamon wrote...

I wonder...if the choice had not been killing the Geth, but another species..say you can defeat the reapers, but all Turians have to die...or all Humans?

For those who believe sacrificing the geth would have been acceptable, would one of those other two choices have been as acceptable?

For myself, I found the Geth to be the easiest race to sympathize with (which is why I think that it's the Geth is meaningful), so I don't think it would have made it any more difficult for me.  I don't know if it would have made it easier for me either.

I posed a similar question earlier, and there are some that believe that they would not be able to choose Destroy regardless of the race, which is fair.  It's tricky to determine because it's all hypothetical haha.  I mean, I doubt I would be able to make such a decision, but Shepard.  He has the chutzpah to make the hard choice.



.

Thats why Shepard should have had more options, it's one thing to be
able to make a difficult choice, when you have information but in this
case we don't really.

If we have those 16 choices, I could say hmm, if i
go with choice number 11 for instance, i know that 10% of humans will
die from this ray, the relay in the asari system will fail and explode
because I didnt get enough war assets or something...

the point is i would be making a decision based on available information. As it
stands, I have to speculate on the consequences of 1 of 3 choices

Modifié par mokponobi, 10 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[Naugi]

Lesbian Wood Elf wrote...

I wiped them out before the ending and felt like a hero.

Me too!

...aaand everyone on the Normandy agreed with me, well, except EDI maybe. Garrus especially lists off a whole load of reasons that the Geth needed to die, and I agreed with him.

[Allan Schumacher]

tookrunk1991 wrote...

i still dont understand how shepard can live in the red ending when the starchild told you that you would die since shepard is like 90% synthetic since mass effect 2

If you look at the results of the Crucible firing with low EMS, humanity appears to be outright eradicated.  With higher EMS, they seem unaffected.

What I didn't really understand as well while playing, but I am leaning more to now, is that the EMS score appears to relate to how precise the Crucible fires its pulse.  Hackett mentions earlier in the game how he's not certain what the Crucible will do, and how we're not even sure how to make it target only the Reapers.  The Catalyst does say that Shepard is mostly synthetic.  The fact that Shepard can survive, though, tells me that he's not all knowing.  With a high enough EMS the Crucible appears to be able to fire more precisely than even the Catalyst anticipates, and Shepard is spared.  I'm wondering if maybe the Geth are spared too actually

[Naugi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

tookrunk1991 wrote...

i still dont understand how shepard can live in the red ending when the starchild told you that you would die since shepard is like 90% synthetic since mass effect 2

If you look at the results of the Crucible firing with low EMS, humanity appears to be outright eradicated.  With higher EMS, they seem unaffected.

What I didn't really understand as well while playing, but I am leaning more to now, is that the EMS score appears to relate to how precise the Crucible fires its pulse.  Hackett mentions earlier in the game how he's not certain what the Crucible will do, and how we're not even sure how to make it target only the Reapers.  The Catalyst does say that Shepard is mostly synthetic.  The fact that Shepard can survive, though, tells me that he's not all knowing.  With a high enough EMS the Crucible appears to be able to fire more precisely than even the Catalyst anticipates, and Shepard is spared.  I'm wondering if maybe the Geth are spared too actually

Just so long as you know that makes no sense with what EMS was actually supposed to represent in the game - the chance of our forces in a final battle, not the accuracy of the Crucible. How does having Diana Allers on board the Normandy, or a Ciradel Defence Force, or the Vorscha (etc etc etc) have any influence over the Crucible?

This just confirms how badly broken the ending is, because in the end EMS was just a superficial magic number and the make up of the 'Assets' was largely irrelevant. We might just as well have recruited Battarian Boomerang Flingers, Salarian Fishermen and Turian Ballerinas, as long as they had an EMS value attached to them.

Modifié par Naugi, 10 avril 2012 - 11:22 .

[Naugi]

Modifié par Naugi, 10 avril 2012 - 11:20 .

[Beldamon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Beldamon wrote...

I wonder...if the choice had not been killing the Geth, but another species..say you can defeat the reapers, but all Turians have to die...or all Humans?

For those who believe sacrificing the geth would have been acceptable, would one of those other two choices have been as acceptable?

For myself, I found the Geth to be the easiest race to sympathize with (which is why I think that it's the Geth is meaningful), so I don't think it would have made it any more difficult for me.  I don't know if it would have made it easier for me either.

I posed a similar question earlier, and there are some that believe that they would not be able to choose Destroy regardless of the race, which is fair.  It's tricky to determine because it's all hypothetical haha.  I mean, I doubt I would be able to make such a decision, but Shepard.  He has the chutzpah to make the hard choice.

Coolness!    I'm sorry I missed the earlier post.

Ok, how about something more general?

Say one is presented with three choices, and all of them seem 'bad'.  Does picking the least-'bad' seeming choice make it a good choice?

Now, interestingly, I was faced with that earlier in the game, on my first playthrough.  Yes, I failed to leave the 'Reaper Base' mission on Rannoch for last, so I was left with the choice to side with the Quarians or the Geth.

Though there was no 'good' choice in this case, there was a 'right' one for me -- I sided with the Geth.  The Quarians had been the agressors in the conflict and had been given multiple opportunities to stand down.  Siding with the Geth was a no-brainer for me.  I shed a few RL tears for Tali and for the Quarians, but my conscience was clear.

With the ending there was neither a good nor a right choice, for me. 

I explain that in this wall of text:  http://social.biowar...788/19#11223242

tl;dr 'hard choice' doesn't even really come into it.  It is from my point of view that any choice is worse than no choice.

Modifié par Beldamon, 10 avril 2012 - 11:21 .

[tookrunk1991]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

tookrunk1991 wrote...

i still dont understand how shepard can live in the red ending when the starchild told you that you would die since shepard is like 90% synthetic since mass effect 2

If you look at the results of the Crucible firing with low EMS, humanity appears to be outright eradicated.  With higher EMS, they seem unaffected.

What I didn't really understand as well while playing, but I am leaning more to now, is that the EMS score appears to relate to how precise the Crucible fires its pulse.  Hackett mentions earlier in the game how he's not certain what the Crucible will do, and how we're not even sure how to make it target only the Reapers.  The Catalyst does say that Shepard is mostly synthetic.  The fact that Shepard can survive, though, tells me that he's not all knowing.  With a high enough EMS the Crucible appears to be able to fire more precisely than even the Catalyst anticipates, and Shepard is spared.  I'm wondering if maybe the Geth are spared too actually

how does having a higher effective military strength make the crucible fire more accurately? that makes the ending make even less sense to me... hopefully the summer dlc can clarify this..... hopefully

[Lyrebon]

Because the scene after Harbinger's beam is all in Shepard's head and the destroy ending represents her rejecting indoctrination thereby waking up.

[tookrunk1991]

i can only hope the indoctrination theory is right.... i have a bad feeling the summer dlc is going to destroy that theory though.... i really do like the indoctrination theory though....

[Naugi]

tookrunk1991 wrote...

how does having a higher effective military strength make the crucible fire more accurately?

It cant. It makes no sense whatsoever.

It just illustrates how utterly broken the ending is if EMS, which throughout the game was an indication of how well our combined forces would do in a final battle (remember those words on the screen in war room giving your odds of success?) ends up being nothing more than a superficial magic number that determines Crucible accuracy despite no possible correlation between the two things.

[Allan Schumacher]

Naugi wrote...

Just so long as you know that makes no sense with what EMS was actually supposed to represent in the game - the chance of our forces in a final battle, not the accuracy of the Crucible. How does having Diana Allers on board the Normandy, or a Ciradel Defence Force, or the Vorscha (etc etc etc) have any influence over the Crucible?

This just confirms how badly broken the ending is, because in the end EMS was just a superficial magic number and the make up of the 'Assets' was largely irrelevant. We might just as well have recruited Battarian Boomerang Flingers, Salarian Fishermen and Turian Ballerinas, as long as they had an EMS value attached to them.

I made the assumption that the EMS represented the power of my military fleet as well.  I think I just like big dreadnoughts with powerful guns that make pretty explosions....  But if you notice, a lot of the war assets that you receive explicitly discuss their work on the Crucible.  So the EMS score was always affected by your ability to properly make the Crucible.

As for the military assets, the ability for the fleet to protect the Crucible is also vital.  I agree it's not 100% clear on that regard, but I disagree that the EMS was purely a measurement of our ability to fight the Reapers.  The way the ending plays out actually confirms this, but that only helps from a metaknowledge perspective.

[Allan Schumacher]

Beldamon wrote...

Coolness!    I'm sorry I missed the earlier post.

Ok, how about something more general?

Say one is presented with three choices, and all of them seem 'bad'.  Does picking the least-'bad' seeming choice make it a good choice?

I think it depends on how flexible you are with the term "good."  If you equate good with something more "ideal" or "positive" or "happy" then I'd say probably not.  If you see it as more relative, in that it is "good" because it is "better" then I think it's fair.

Now, interestingly, I was faced with that earlier in the game, on my first playthrough.  Yes, I failed to leave the 'Reaper Base' mission on Rannoch for last, so I was left with the choice to side with the Quarians or the Geth.

Though there was no 'good' choice in this case, there was a 'right' one for me -- I sided with the Geth.  The Quarians had been the agressors in the conflict and had been given multiple opportunities to stand down.  Siding with the Geth was a no-brainer for me.  I shed a few RL tears for Tali and for the Quarians, but my conscience was clear.

I was primed to let the Quarians die too.  Having to choose, they were more in the wrong.

With the ending there was neither a good nor a right choice, for me. 

I explain that in this wall of text:  http://social.biowar...788/19#11223242

tl;dr 'hard choice' doesn't even really come into it.  It is from my point of view that any choice is worse than no choice.

I'll have to look over that post first haha.

how does having a higher effective military strength make the crucible
fire more accurately? that makes the ending make even less sense to
me... hopefully the summer dlc can clarify this..... hopefully

If you look at your military assets, a lot of them describe their ability to work on the crucible.  Hackett makes comments that the engineers working on the crucible are freaked out by the Rachni being present, and stuff like that.  Based on how the EMS alters the endings right now, it seems to me that the precision of the Crucible is related to the EMS value.  It's what causes humanity to be unscathed on Earth, or to be literally disintegrated.

[tookrunk1991]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Just so long as you know that makes no sense with what EMS was actually supposed to represent in the game - the chance of our forces in a final battle, not the accuracy of the Crucible. How does having Diana Allers on board the Normandy, or a Ciradel Defence Force, or the Vorscha (etc etc etc) have any influence over the Crucible?

This just confirms how badly broken the ending is, because in the end EMS was just a superficial magic number and the make up of the 'Assets' was largely irrelevant. We might just as well have recruited Battarian Boomerang Flingers, Salarian Fishermen and Turian Ballerinas, as long as they had an EMS value attached to them.

I made the assumption that the EMS represented the power of my military fleet as well.  I think I just like big dreadnoughts with powerful guns that make pretty explosions....  But if you notice, a lot of the war assets that you receive explicitly discuss their work on the Crucible.  So the EMS score was always affected by your ability to properly make the Crucible.

As for the military assets, the ability for the fleet to protect the Crucible is also vital.  I agree it's not 100% clear on that regard, but I disagree that the EMS was purely a measurement of our ability to fight the Reapers.  The way the ending plays out actually confirms this, but that only helps from a metaknowledge perspective.

i actually forgot about that... that the ems also helped with the crucible building... that does make more sense

[Naugi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Just so long as you know that makes no sense with what EMS was actually supposed to represent in the game - the chance of our forces in a final battle, not the accuracy of the Crucible. How does having Diana Allers on board the Normandy, or a Ciradel Defence Force, or the Vorscha (etc etc etc) have any influence over the Crucible?

This just confirms how badly broken the ending is, because in the end EMS was just a superficial magic number and the make up of the 'Assets' was largely irrelevant. We might just as well have recruited Battarian Boomerang Flingers, Salarian Fishermen and Turian Ballerinas, as long as they had an EMS value attached to them.

I made the assumption that the EMS represented the power of my military fleet as well.  I think I just like big dreadnoughts with powerful guns that make pretty explosions....  But if you notice, a lot of the war assets that you receive explicitly discuss their work on the Crucible.  So the EMS score was always affected by your ability to properly make the Crucible.

As for the military assets, the ability for the fleet to protect the Crucible is also vital.  I agree it's not 100% clear on that regard, but I disagree that the EMS was purely a measurement of our ability to fight the Reapers.  The way the ending plays out actually confirms this, but that only helps from a metaknowledge perspective.

Some of the EMS is based on Assets that contribute directly to successfully building the Crucible and / or understanding it / using it successfully BUT the bulk of the EMS score comes from military assets, from fleets to individual ships to commando squads to individuals like Jack. These have no influence on the Crucibles ability to fire a beam.

The Assets that could be seen as affecting Crucible accuracy are dwarfed by those that would have no influence on its effectiveness. EMS was supposed to represent chance of success in a final battle, not ability to defend the Crucible. That just doesnt fit with everything we were told as we amassed these assets.