Modifié par The Irish Man, 11 avril 2012 - 05:09 .
No, it's not a sacrifice. It's using an entire race of new, intelligent, curious sentient creatures as a means to an end, or as "collateral."
Organic life has value why? Well we all value different things and THAT makes us valuable as a whole. The Geth (Because they are machines) do not. All human life is 99.9% identical yet we vary greatly. Geth do not. We choose our own path, we chose to live and love and do so how and with whom we choose. Geth...do not
acidic-ph0 wrote...
Technically Shepherd doesn't have the "right" to make any of the final decisions. He/she's not given any information about what he/she's doing and we have no idea what the reprecussions will be for ANY of the three choices other than the relays being destroyed. Basically it's a "leap of faith" moment that decides the future for the entire galaxy. The only logical decission to make in a situation like this is none but we weren't allowed that choice <_<
Zine2 wrote...
Euphemisms have always been used to justify genocide. It's not "genocide", it's "sacrifice". It's not "genocide". It's a "solution".
A sacrifice is one made willingly. When Mordin went up to the tower knowing he would die, that was sacrifice.
The Geth don't get a choice if Shep picks the red option. They just die. That's not sacrifice. That's murder.
Facts are facts. Playing around with definitions doesn't make it clever; it only reveals the depths of deception and self-denial required to pretend it isn't genocide.
M0keys wrote...
But nothing is worth the genocide of the Geth. Nothing. If you can not protect the Greatest Newest Symbol of The Evolution and Magic of Emergent Life in your efforts to save the galaxy, you might as well just walk away. Life isn't a vague concept, you see it all around you in Mass Effect. You're fighting for what they all are.
And remember Mordin's lesson. He made a mistake.
But this is one mistake for which Shepard will never be able to atone.
Zine2 wrote...
Wrong. That's semantic wordplay. If you're saying "sacrifice" can be unwilling, then your definition of sacrifice is actually no different from murder or genocide.
I have absolutely no need to play around with words. Why use "sacrifice" when it has other implications, when what is actually truly being committed is "murder" and "genocide"?
Using the word "sacrifice" is nothing more than an attempt to muddle the issue. It's semantic wordplay. It's lying to people about the reality of the situation.
Poshible wrote...
Yet, you just referred to Legion as "itself" and "it". Not himself or him.
I'm just saying, if the Geth are alive--then the reapers are alive. Harbinger tells Shepard "You are becoming an annoyance". To be annoyed, you feel. So killing the Reapers is no different. In the logic being presented to me anyway.
Shepard was not given the choice to save everybody. Shepard was handed bad choices and had to make one.
CronoDragoon wrote...
Since they are trying to genocide you, I consider an act of self-defense equal to the severity of the attack, and therefore justifiable.
I am not denying sacrifice has multiple meanings. But throwing a girl down a volcano is simply murder. Calling it "sacrifice" is simply an attempt at positive spin.
Elyiia wrote...
The question has never been whether genocide was justified or not. The question was did Shepard commit genocide. He did, at least once during Arrival. He did it twice more (Does it count as two if you destroy two species at once?) if he picked destroy.
M0keys wrote...
CronoDragoon wrote...
I am fine with calling the destruction of the geth genocide if we can also admit there is a clear moral difference between what Shepard chose to do and what Hitler did. That does not mean it was morally admirable, but it was not as morally heinous as the examples of genocide we have in history.
There were different core reasons, but I believe they still loose equal amounts of evil upon the world, and it's why I'd never pick destroy in a million years.
CronoDragoon wrote...
I can't agree with this. What is the moral lesson of this game, then? That the only way to win is to compromise your morals? That standing by your moral beliefs can only lead to one outcome - death? It should absolutely be an option to maintain your moral integrity and win.
Actually - by refusing you don't know he's dooming the cycle to repeat.
He's just refusing the chocies given by some 'deity' and stands up in
defiance of the no-win situation.
Afterall - that is the Shepard character at the core, right back to ME1
and the background traits you select, over to ME2 and the ressurection
and 'suicide' mission.
Slash1667 wrote...
I'll upset people by bring this up but here goes. Accord you the terminal in the War room if you have enough war assets and readiness it says that the galactic powers have a 50/50 chance against the Reapers. If a refuse the Catalyst option is picked it means that you take the chance of having the powers decimated but maybe pulling out a win.
The Refuse option should still be there though.
Zine2 wrote...
If you want a game to be art, then it should in fact try to impart some kind of message - which in turn can serve as its "moral lesson". Art by definition is about conveying a message to the audience using various mediums.
And frankly, the message a lot of people got was "Nothing you do matters." Or, worse, the message is "They say that evil prevails if good men do nothing. What they should really say is: Evil prevails."
Provo_101 wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I always inferred that Hackett's assessment included using the Crucible. Though it's fair to say it's not.
It could have blew up in his face for all he knew.
If I recall correctly, the problem with that theory is that we have no idea what the crucible does all the way up to the point where the crucible docks with the citadel.
Therefore, Hackett shouldn't have any idea on how its level of completion will have an actual effect on the war.
Granted, as you said, he could be basing his projections on the state of completion of the crucible and its supposed status as a superweapon, but I never really got that feeling.
I had the intent of creating peace between the Geth and Quarians when Rannoch rolled around, I fought for the Geths' personal intelligence. EDI's personality also got through to me over the course of the game, I held both EDI and the Geth in high regard, I think the StarInfant knew this seeing as how he may be bloody telepathic smilie (VentBoy appearance).
Zine2 wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Art, by definition, is "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects,
environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."
Notice the bolded portion?
You have noticed a lot of people not liking the ending, to the tune of over 90% of people polled in the BSN forum, yes?
I am telling you why those people are not liking the ending, I am not telling you how you should like or dislike the ending.
DubVee12 wrote...
Yeah your right, how dare the Geth try to survive when faced with extermination from the Quarians. Shame on them.
1 :the crime of deliberately killing a person [noncount]
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought "
Murder is murder bro.
vinyalonn wrote...
And also what about all the stuff that was revealed during the consensus? When it showed the geth were growing and evolving in ways that no one had predicted or intended. What stood out to me the most was what Legion said regarding the quarians who died sacrifcing themselves trying to save and protect the geth. That:
"We have kept records of these creators' sacrifices. They have largely been forgotten by their own people. But not by the geth."
That was even before they achieved "true AI status". That plucked a major heart-string for me, for whatever reason. I can't view the geth as "just machines" personally.
Bioware condones genocide.
Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2012 - 05:42 .
Retour en haut
