808 réponses à ce sujet

[The Irish Man]

Genocide? When did shepard commit genocide? Killing all geth and reapers is not genocide. They're synthetic beings.

[jmacrosoft]

Why not? You pretty much killed off the Batarians right?

[Allan Schumacher]

Naugi wrote...

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.

I disagree that the "fleets" would have no influence on the Crucible's construction (any Naval Fleet is filled with ships that help manage logistics.  Not purely military vessels.  This ignores the sheer manpower that they'd be able to contribute).  Some of them are purely military assets, but at the same time the whole gambit at the end of the game is to link the Crucible up to the Citadel.  Military assets are just as useful from the stand point of having Reaper forces shooting at them instead of at the Crucible.

You won't find any argument from me that this wasn't as clear as it needed to be, but based on how we actually see that the varying EMS values do directly affect the beam, based on the result that happens at the end.

[Ieya]

I have to agree about EMS and the Crucible - the more powerful fleets are presumably more able to draw the Reapers' full attention and spare it minor damage from glancing shots etc too.

[Iakus]

The Irish Man wrote...

Genocide? When did shepard commit genocide? Killing all geth and reapers is not genocide. They're synthetic beings.

Shepard is at risk of being fried by the same force that kills the geth and Reapers, because Shep is 
partly synthetic due to cybernetics.

The quarians rely on cybernetics as well, to interface with their suits.  What happens to them?

Similarly, biotics, save possibly the asari, rely on cybernetic implants through their nervous system to control their abilities.  What happens to them?  Are L2's about to have a lot more than a migraine to be concerned with?

[greggm2000]

The Irish Man wrote...

Genocide? When did shepard commit genocide? Killing all geth and reapers is not genocide. They're synthetic beings.

That's a Quarian way to look at it, certainly. It is one of the questions the series grapples with, namely, "what is life".

[greggm2000]

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

Indeed. Which tells us that the Starchild either is lying, is ignorant of the full facts, or is telling you the facts but slanting the answers towards the choice it wants you to make. Any of those is very interesting.

I suspect that DLC is going to raise questions as well as solve them... and those newly raised questions will link into ME4 in some way.

[TekFanX]

The star-child gives me headaches.

-It's either all-knowing, unable to adapt to examples like the geth+quarian peace or it simply lies.

-The Catalyst is incompetent:
Its target is to keep technological development on a level, where synthetics can't wipe out all organic life.
Yet there are the geth and all those charming stories Javik tells us.

-Applied in the last minutes of a large trilogy.

-Describing "Civilisation-Gardening" in a way, it can be understood as circular logic.

-Mentioning the Reapers with "they are my solution to chaos" and then stating "we created the cycles, so...".
I doubt the Catalyst is refering to itself and the reapers as "we", because this would mean, the cycles have been created after the reapers.
This would mean that the child created the solution before the plan?
For an eternal AI/VI/whatever, it seems rather illogical to create a huge army of sentient cyborg-starships for no reason and then think of a way to use them.

So if the child isn't the only one of its kind(I'm shuddering in disgust at that thought), it would mean there are others like it.
The being of light on Klencory?
Regarding this tweet, I somehow think this is intended now: twitter.com/#!/JessicaMerizan/status/189420195968847873 .

Still, the Catalyst has to be some kind of machine, I think.
"The Citadel is part of me."(A part is already a machine) and this deformation of the projection as soon as the choice is made, just like the TV-picture from a bad analog satellite-connection.
I think those are clear hints on that thing being a machine.

So, let's assume, that the Catalyst belongs to a group of synthetics, who decided (or are made) to create some kind of cycle in the evolution of organic life.
With many "Catalysts", all working on that in some ways: As the prothean VI mentions, there are countless patterns in the galaxy.

Shepard can do the following to interfere with the plan of one of the synthetics:
-Destroy: Technology evolves uncontrolled. Without the Catalyst or the Reapers to interfere further. Question: Will the other catalysts come and become the new Reapers?
-Control: Shepard somehow joins the club of the pattern-wardens. Question: So, the cycles will continue?
-Synthesis: All life is bio-synthetic now, rendering the other catalyst useless. Question: Do the Catalysts search for a new purpose in their existence, or will they try to assume control in some other way?

[Naugi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

You won't find any argument from me that this wasn't as clear as it needed to be, but based on how we actually see that the varying EMS values do directly affect the beam, based on the result that happens at the end.

Still think its a bit sketchy that a few hundred EMS difference somehow means Shepard can live or that a beam can do something different. Yes the fleets can defend the Crucible, allowing it to fire, but how do they allow it to fire differently? How does having another 200 EMS from lets say, the Terminus Fleet, allow the beam to do something new? How would that change if Shepard lives or dies?

This is the problem with EMS and the endings, and why you might just as well have scanned for EMS from planet surfaces and mined it like you mined Plutonium in ME2. Because the form it took was mostly irrelevant to what happened in the ending, you just needed X amount of it for A to happen and Y amount of it for B to happen.

I get that we are supposed to accept that EMS does magically change the outcome of the ending, but doing so requires that you dont actually think about how.

[Allan Schumacher]

Naugi wrote...

Still think its a bit sketchy that a few hundred EMS difference somehow means Shepard can live or that a beam can do something different. Yes the fleets can defend the Crucible, allowing it to fire, but how do they allow it to fire differently? How does having another 200 EMS from lets say, the Terminus Fleet, allow the beam to do something new? How would that change if Shepard lives or dies?

That's more an issue of game production though.  When developing the game, you have to pick some sort of threshold, and if you make it more of a gradient you're going to end up shooting yourself in the foot for representing that in a meaningful way.

You also start to get into semantics over what exactly 1 unit of war score actually represents.  There's no good reason for why 3999 EMS kills Shepard and why 4000 EMS spares him aside from "It's a video game and it's a lot easier to do it that way then some other way."

I think this can be extended to other games as well.  I mean, why is a character still able to fight at 1/100 health (often at the same ability as 100/100), but then suddenly 0/100 it's just game over.

[xsamplexample]

 Destroy is the most morally-wrong choice, but donce with a high EMS, the best version of it plays out.  Similar to how low EMS control ending damages the galaxy but doesnt kill everyone.

[Naugi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Naugi wrote...

Still think its a bit sketchy that a few hundred EMS difference somehow means Shepard can live or that a beam can do something different. Yes the fleets can defend the Crucible, allowing it to fire, but how do they allow it to fire differently? How does having another 200 EMS from lets say, the Terminus Fleet, allow the beam to do something new? How would that change if Shepard lives or dies?

That's more an issue of game production though.  When developing the game, you have to pick some sort of threshold, and if you make it more of a gradient you're going to end up shooting yourself in the foot for representing that in a meaningful way.

You also start to get into semantics over what exactly 1 unit of war score actually represents.  There's no good reason for why 3999 EMS kills Shepard and why 4000 EMS spares him aside from "It's a video game and it's a lot easier to do it that way then some other way."

I think this can be extended to other games as well.  I mean, why is a character still able to fight at 1/100 health (often at the same ability as 100/100), but then suddenly 0/100 it's just game over.

Perhaps its just not such a good idea to tie that threshold to assets that (at least to me) dont seem to have any logical effect on the thing that the threshold relates to (in this case beam power / Shepards life).

Take your 1/100 health example, with you there, but no one is going to struggle with the logic that less health leads to death. I do struggle with the logic that a Krogan Clan riding Kakliosaurs is going to help Shepard live. Or that having Jack on my side providing biotic barriers to ground forces is going to help the beam do something better.

I think it would have been better to have had a War Room stat called 'Beam Strength' or something like that, affected by all of the science teams / techy stuff you gathered, giving a threshold for the options on the Crucible and for Shepards survival in a way thats far more logical.

Military Strength could then have remained a seperate stat affected by your fleets and soldiers which measured your chance of protecting the Crucible, but would also have needed to give some indication of ground force success (which is why we dearly need some ground force cut scenes in the extended cut to make sense of having those in the first place).

Just my thoughts anyway, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Jacobcus]

kaotician wrote...

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.

"Genoicide-The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Didn't think ida have to give a definition for something thats common sense, but there ya go.

Modifié par Jacobcus, 11 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[Cobra's_back]

Jacobcus wrote...

kaotician wrote...

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.

"Genoicide-The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Didn't think ida have to give a definition for something thats common sense, but there ya go.

Totally agree. It is not genocide. Shepard reports to the Admirals. It is Shepard’s duty to get rid of the Reapers. The geth are considered war casualties.
 
If God Child could guarantee that Shepard will control the reapers and can stop them from coming back in the future, then Control would be the best option. It is vague. The Child states Shepard will lose everything. What is that mind, body and soul?? I would take Control if he said you’ll be the Reaper God.
 

[ArchLord James]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

... because after all that 'does this unit have a soul?' talk on Rannoch, it turns out it was them or us all along. Tali's character develoment is moot. Legion's sacrifice was meaningless. I want to ragemurder a kitten.

I actually don't see it this way, and I did pick the Destroy ending.  I saw the Reapers as a threat and one that ultimately needed to be destroyed.  I also loved that I was presented an option to make peace between the Geth and Quarians earlier in the game.  It (and Tuchanka) was probably one of my favourite moments in recent gaming history.  Probably since Planescape: Torment (my favourite game all time).


When I reached the conduit, I fully expected to have to sacrifice myself.  To be fair, I expected to sacrifice myself at the end of the previous two games too, so to me it's always something that I saw coming.  I also had no idea what to expect the Crucible to actually do.  Given the talks with Hackett, I felt it was us putting all our eggs in one basket because we only saw one basket to put our eggs into.

So I get to the Catalyst and start talking with him.  He presents the ways that the crucible can unleash its power.  I'm going into this thinking "Reapers. Must. Die!"  But then I'm told that choosing to destroy the Reapers will also destroy the Geth!  "Wait... WHAT?!  But I don't want to do that!!"  I found it very, very similar to Legion's loyalty mission in ME2 (one of my favourite parts of that game).  When presented with the Control ending, I was now a bit more considerate of it.  When presented with the synthesis ending, I was a bit more considerate of it.

It is because of the growth of the Geth and Quarians that my "obvious" choice was now not so obvious.  I also refused to believe the Catalyst's statements about the inevitability of synthetics and organics to destroy each other.  In fact, when Shepard says "Maybe" in response to the Catalyst's claims, it was my exact same thought.  I had grown to appreciate the Geth and Quarians because I was able to help resolve the 300 year conflict with them.  They were able to move on, which gave me hope that synthetic-organic conflict was not inevitable.

If Legion's sacrifice was meaningless, and Tali's character development irrelevant, I wouldn't have taken the time to think about whether or not I should destroy the reapers.  I wouldn't have cared at all.  I choked up when Tali told Legion it had a soul, and when Legion said "Keelah Se'lai" to her.  It was an amazing scene.  I thought it was awesome that the Geth were helping the Quarians adapt and retake Rannoch.  Which is what made the destroy option that much more impactful for me.  Rather than being a trivial, obvious choice, I hesitated and had an emotional response to the decision.

In the end, I chose the destroy ending.  I found it bittersweet because it came at the cost of the Geth, but ultimately freeing the galaxy of the Reapers is something my Shepard felt had to be done.  The "maybe" he said rang true for me, and I wanted to give the opportunity for organics to prove the Catalyst wrong in the future.  I actually preferred this ending to simply "destroy all reapers."  Though I can understand that people would have preferred something more ideal.


NOTE:  While my name has BioWare attached to it, I've only ever worked on the DA franchise and actually would close my eyes and go "LALALALALALA" during the ME parts of studio meetings so as to not spoil anything for myself

In other words, I played through the game as a fan of the franchise too


Cheers.

Allan

I get what your saying Allan, but where you see something that added weight and consequence to a decision, I just see a sloppy tacked on way keep the decision from being the one that 99% of players made. It wasn't very well thought out because shepard doing this contradicts so many established ME themes.

All that is besides the point, that only reason the consequence is even imposed on shepard in the first place is because these are not shepards solutions to the reaper threat. Shepard failed and had no power to stop the reapers. The reapers themselves only had the power to stop the cycle, and the catalyst chose to do so since he believed the cycle was no longer effective. He simply allows shepard to bear witness to his power and his heroism. It is only a gesture of pity and charity towards the organics of this cycle that he allows shepard to choose between the 3 viable solutions. You make the crucible sound like a soul-less machine with unknown consequences? You expect us to believe that all the races who worked on the crucible designed it to have these 3 options including one option to use magic and transform all life in the galaxy? Nah its the reapers design and shepard sold his soul to it.

Modifié par ArchLord James, 11 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[Pain Train]

He doesn't. The starchild lied. IF he didn't, there would never be a chance for shepard or EdI to live. Thus, geth survive also.

[Jacobcus]

Pain Train wrote...

He doesn't. The starchild lied. IF he didn't, there would never be a chance for shepard or EdI to live. Thus, geth survive also.

Technically it states the geth will die if he Shepard chooses so. Shepard is only half syn. as well, as for the EDI part, probably just part of the poor ending plot hole.

[tookrunk1991]

Jacobcus wrote...

Pain Train wrote...

He doesn't. The starchild lied. IF he didn't, there would never be a chance for shepard or EdI to live. Thus, geth survive also.

Technically it states the geth will die if he Shepard chooses so. Shepard is only half syn. as well, as for the EDI part, probably just part of the poor ending plot hole.

ya, and it also states that shepard would die if he choose so too... and we know what happened with that..... so there is a chance the geth lived

[Ieya]

Legion: "Does this unit have a soul?"
Tali: "Yes"

The Geth are alive, and destroying them is a genocide - albeit one slightly mitigated by being a casualty of the greater good of removing the threat of the Reapers.

[Cobra's_back]

Ieya wrote...

Legion: "Does this unit have a soul?"
Tali: "Yes"

The Geth are alive, and destroying them is a genocide - albeit one slightly mitigated by being a casualty of the greater good of removing the threat of the Reapers.

Technically and by definition it is not genocide. Look up the definition or check out the post above. They are war casualties. Shepard did not set out or intend genocide. His mission per both Admirals is to destroy the Reapers.
Granted, you may not like it, but Shepard is in the military and does have a chain of command to follow. In order to take the Control option he has to believe that he can eliminate the threat and end the cycle forever.

[Jacobcus]

The Irish Man wrote...

Genocide? When did shepard commit genocide? Killing all geth and reapers is not genocide. They're synthetic beings.

This honestly has to be the most ignorant debate. Genoicide is the deliberate killing of a race/people, in the Mass Effect Universe Synthetic's are to be considered a race. Reapers are Organic and Synthetic, a race, Geth are given a soul and a mind, they are a race. It even states in game it is Genocide killing them. Edit: As for the "Chain of Command" people keep talking about, there is no "Chain of Command" when Shepard is with the Catayst, if he chooses to kill Synthetics, it is Genoicide, he had no Orders, he had no contact with his "Chain of Command," This was a choice by Shepard, no one else. Just so I dont get a ignorant reply, his orders were to Stop the Reapers, not Destroy, so don't waste mine and everyones time with that useless analogy. End of Discussion.

Modifié par Jacobcus, 11 avril 2012 - 05:05 .

[Cobra's_back]

Jacobcus wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

Genocide? When did shepard commit genocide? Killing all geth and reapers is not genocide. They're synthetic beings.

This honestly has to be the most ignorant debate. Genoicide is the deliberate killing of a race/people, in the Mass Effect Universe Synthetic's are to be considered a race. Reapers are Organic and Synthetic, a race, Geth are given a soul and a mind, they are a race. It even states in game it is Genocide killing them. Edit: As for the "Chain of Command" people keep talking about, there is no "Chain of Command" when Shepard is with the Catayst, if he chooses to kill Synthetics, it is Genoicide, he had no Orders, he had no contact with his "Chain of Command," This was a choice by Shepard, no one else. Just so I dont get a ignorant reply, his orders were to Stop the Reapers, not Destroy, so don't waste mine and everyones time with that useless analogy. End of Discussion.

[Cobra's_back]

double post

Totally disagree.Trying to shut someone down for their opinion isn’t going to work. You don’t have to listen, but it is still their opinion.

[Jacobcus]

ghostbusters101 wrote...

double post

Totally disagree.Trying to shut someone down for their opinion isn’t going to work. You don’t have to listen, but it is still their opinion.

The Mass Effect Universe confirms it as Genocide, so no opinions really matter, this Topic is not about whether its Genocide or not. End of discussion.

[Rheinlandman]

Do we even know if Red really kills all the Synthetics?

I mean as far as I see it all three endings were so damn ambiguous that the extended endings might as well be considered new endings. Do we really trust stargodchildthing?

Also killing the Geth would probably kill the Quarians, so its double genocide.

The Quarians on Rannoch are for the first time living without their fleet and its resources and maybe fairly dependent on the Geths help with recolonization during the Battle for Earth.

So Shepard? 4-Time Xenocide allstar? Geth, Quarian, Reaper, and EDI (a unique example of Sapient awareness).

We won't know until the ambiguity is cleared in the extended cut, but thankfully it seems that more than just Hudson and Walters are involved in the choices.