644 réponses à ce sujet

[AnImpossibleGirl]

[/quote] 

Infertile people would like to have a word with you 
I don't think you can objectively claim that they lack desire, feelings or emotion (unless you have experienced them yourself). I could also argue that human emotions are influenced very heavily by their environment, including the people around them. And I believe it is also possible to "hack" an organic mind; I believe there was one experiment involving the memories of mice, and how they can be manipulated through particular neurons. No reason this concept can't be applied in higher orders of complexity.

[/quote]
Oh, fair point up top there! Sorry those that are infertile. My sincere aplogies. How glib of me.

The rest though, we can all have separate and valid opinions on. I will respect yours, because I know humans to be easily manipulated...*coughs*I am not religious*coughs* 

[shepard1038]

Isn't the Guardian the one that is the real genocide. Why couldn't he comanded the reapers to stop?

[acidic-ph0]

Icinix wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

All three choices were a no-win scenario.

Which is why its odd there was not a refuse ending. Hammer retreated from the beam (what was left of Hammer), the fleet was clearly still sticking around while Shepard played silly buggers with TIM and Anderson. They weren't prepared to turn and run.

Why wasn't a refuse option present? Why couldn't Shep put a bullet in the Starchilds head and say screw you. Lets see what a united Galaxy can do to the Reapers main force.

I don't believe anyone should have had the power of those three choices. Not even Shepard.

I agree completely. Shepherd is an amazing individual for sure... but no single individual can decide the fate of the galaxy with the "choices" we were given. Espcecially without having any sort of idea what the consequences will be. By destroying the Mass Relays, we could potentially be dooming the Galaxy to a much worse fate than a 50K year Reaper cycle. Especiialy since we aren't given any in-game assurance that the exploding relays will not super-nova like in arrival...

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

My Shepard wouldn't commit genocide even if he picks "Destroy"
Because the Quarians killed Geth.

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 11 avril 2012 - 07:26 .

[Elyiia]

shepard1038 wrote...


Sacrificing a colony to delay the reapers isn't worth it and also the reapers wouldn't have destroyed the colony
anyway?Another thing the asteroid was alredy on a collision course with relay and you can chose to warn the
colony.

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

[Provo_101]

Elyiia wrote...

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

Its either that or have everyone die tomorrow. 

[Zine2]

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.

I've argued in another thread that this is the very reason why the endings were so reviled: You are not allowed to stand up for your morals.

While moral compromise can sometimes be a great ending (see The Dark Knight), the ME3 ending is simply unable to pull it off because of the gravity of the Reaper's crimes. People can accept that Batman has to shoulder the crimes of Harvey Dent to maintain his image and save the city from anarchy. People find it much harder to nod along when a genocidal war criminal like the Star Child tells them they should become part of a new solution.

And the reason is this: In "The Dark Knight", the moral compromise is ultimately one that involves personal sacrifice. Batman is destroying his own reputation and morals, but he does this to save everyone.

In ME3, all the choices not only involve personal sacrifice and moral compromise on the part of Shepard, but the Galaxy at large ends up suffering anyway - the Mass Relays all blow up regardless, the Geth may die, everyone may have their DNA forcibly rewritten, or the Reaper threat may end up coming back anyway.

Frankly, even if the choice meant annihilation, I think a lot of players would choose the "Refuse Star Child" ending. That it's better to die fighting for what you believe in that to be compromised in such a fashion. That you "deny them their victory".

[shepard1038]

Elyiia wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...


Sacrificing a colony to delay the reapers isn't worth it and also the reapers wouldn't have destroyed the colony
anyway?Another thing the asteroid was alredy on a collision course with relay and you can chose to warn the
colony.

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

Wouldn't it have been genocide too if Shepard didn't do nothing and the reapers would have destroyed the colony?

Modifié par shepard1038, 11 avril 2012 - 07:29 .

[Elyiia]

Provo_101 wrote...

Elyiia wrote...

You can choose to warn the colony, but the game won't let you do it. Doesn't matter though, Shepard performed a deliberate act that wiped out a Batarian colony. It doesn't matter whether the colony would have been destroyed. The reasoning doesn't matter for it to be genocide.

Its either that or have everyone die tomorrow. 

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is has Shepard committed genocide. Not whether it is justifyable.

Wouldn't it have been genocide it Shepard didn't do nothing and the reapers would have destroyed the colony?

It wouldn't have been Shepard commiting genocide.

Modifié par Elyiia, 11 avril 2012 - 07:30 .

[Slash1667]

M0keys wrote...

Slash1667 wrote...

M0keys wrote...

TerraNomad wrote...

the key word is sentient. Not Organic or Synthetic. It's pretty much cannon in the Mass Effect story that the Geth are a sentient lifeform and therefore it does constitute genocide. That being said, this arguement is pointless. Given the stakes (the entire galaxy), the loss of a single race to secure the end to the war seems like an acceptable loss.

I believe that if you're Shepard, the hero of the galaxy and possibly a paragon, genocide unmakes you as the galaxy's guardian angel because now the blood is on your hands. When the chips were down, you lost your courage and sacrificed others in your stead.

At best, it makes you like The Operative from Serenity. Willing to murder countless innocents as long as you got your "perfect world" in the end. Complex, but most certainly still evil.

Cookie for Firefly reference:D

Browncoats unite! 

Is it wrong of me that everytime someone tells my Shepard to be careful or that s/he can't do something I really think they should reply with "I aim to misbehave"?

[Eudaemonium]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That's why I find the specific choices fascinating.  The only thing really missing is the inclusion of a choice "refuse the Catalyst" which means Shepard refuses to make a choice knowing that he dooms the cycle to repeat.

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing.  But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?  Is it as bad as forcing every lifeform into a different state of being?  Is it as bad as doing nothing, letting the Reapers kill not only the Geth, but also the Turians, Quarians, Asari, Humans, Salarians, Batarians, Krogan, Vorcha, etc.?

This is kinda why I tend to pick Destroy. (But then I also believe that possibly with high EMS the geth might not die, since Shepard and EDI don't). It feels somewhat like a pyrrhic victory, after Shepard fought so hard to unite the Quarians and the geth in peace. But I just can't get past the possibility that Control is simply deceptive: the Illusive Man eyes that Shepard gets coupled with the Catalyst's knowing smile behind you, the fact the Reapers are still alive, possibly to return. And even if Shepard's control is absolute, what's to say that given the infinite span of time s/he won't just come to the same conclusion as the Reapers/Catalyst and choose to perpetuate the cycle anyway? I just don't trust the Catalyst, and find it either willfully deceptive or simply unaware of the Crucible's exact potential. You've said in previous posts that it clearly isn't omniscient, and emphasised several times the Crucible as an unknown quantity in itself, hence the surprising uses it can be put to. If Shepard and EDI can survive Destroy, why not the geth? Maybe it's just ill-informed on how precise the Crucible's destruction can be focused?

Of course, the issue remains that killing a Reaper (not simply the Reapers) is an act of genocide in itself. Each Reaper is a nation, a people, a civilisation? Many minds with a single will, to quote Legion. Is it rigth to kill them? Not necessarily, but I find it justifiable within the context of the game. I'm surprised the devs didn't actually play up the fact the Reapers were not pure synthetics, considering that was the twist of ME2. There were too many references to them as 'machines' for my liking.

[Zine2]

shepard1038 wrote...

Isn't the Guardian the one that is the real genocide. Why couldn't he comanded the reapers to stop?

Because he's sadly too stupid to realize that he's the problem, not the solution.

[Provo_101]

Elyiia wrote...

Again, it doesn't matter. The question is has Shepard committed genocide. Not whether it is justifyable.

Well yeah, I'm not denying that. 

[kaotician]

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

Destroying the Geth is an awful thing. But is it as bad as risking the inability to control the Reapers, leading to future cycles?

Yeah, I think deliberately killing somebody is worse that "risking" him living lead to some worse repercussions (which are not set in stone yet).

[AnImpossibleGirl]

Zine2 wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Isn't the Guardian the one that is the real genocide. Why couldn't he comanded the reapers to stop?

Because he's sadly too stupid to realize that he's the problem, not the solution.

Where is that "like" button when you need it?

[Zine2]

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

Excellent point.

[CronoDragoon]

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

Sucky as they are, he is given two options that don't destroy the geth. He indeed does have choice whether or not he will destroy the geth. It's not the same as the Reapers who are being controlled.

[tvman099]

shepard1038 wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

 You don't see EDI showing emotion now do you?

Yeah, I do. Her verbal tone doesn't indicate emotion, just like it doesn't for mute people. But she makes jokes and feels a strong need to protect the Normandy and her crew. Those things indicate emotions.

She is run by a processing unit.

So are we, only it is soft and in our skull.

Do you see yourself as a unit like the Geth?

In the fundamental sense that both humans and geth are sapient individuals capable of self-determination and reason, yes. Beyond that, the differences are quite stark. That doesn't change the fact that something that can actually think and act for itself is alive. The fact that I have organs and require food as opposed to having circuits and requiring electrical power are merely differences in physical makeup.

[Provo_101]

Eudaemonium wrote...

Of course, the issue remains that killing a Reaper (not simply the Reapers) is an act of genocide in itself. Each Reaper is a nation, a people, a civilisation? Many minds with a single will, to quote Legion. Is it rigth to kill them? Not necessarily, but I find it justifiable within the context of the game. I'm surprised the devs didn't actually play up the fact the Reapers were not pure synthetics, considering that was the twist of ME2. There were too many references to them as 'machines' for my liking.

It's just standard self-defense, kill or be killed, that kinda thing. They have the intent of wiping us out, just because we might make synthetics. That's like if my parents decided to kill me at a young age because I MIGHT turn into a serial killer.  And the stupid Starkid smacks the whole "each a nation" awesomeness in the face.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

Is there a moral lesson for the game?  Should there be one?  I think that that is reading too much into it.

For me it's more about determining what level of cost you feel is appropriate.  There's no right or wrong answer for any of the choices in my opinion.

It depends on what you define as "winning."

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.

It wasn't clear in how I stated it, but I was supposing a 4th choice where you can refuse to use the Crucible, but in doing so the Reapers win.

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.

That's a fair point in terms of it being thematically correct.  If this is the case though, best to just railroad the character and not even provide an illusion of choice (similar to ME1/2) because the other choices are inferior.  Choosing them is akin to sabotaging your game; intentionally picking an inferior option.  I think I'm a unique hardliner in this regard though.

[Provo_101]

kaotician wrote...

Shepard's action in choosing the Destroy option does not amount to genocide. It is the Catalyst who declares that the Geth will die too if Shepard makes the choice as they do. The only way that Shepard's actions can be tied to the fate of the Geth is if in some way the Catalyst itself is helpless to prevent the destruction of them.

But is it? What is the contingent connection here? If the Catalyst controls the Reapers, as it claims, then the Catalyst itself can order the Reapers to 'stand down' as it were, without a shot being fired. The Catalyst itself can be seen to be the only true agent of free will in the scenario we are presented with, and it can equally clearly be seen that it is the Catalyst that forces the contingent connection between the Geth and the Reapers.

The Catalyst chooses to link the fates of these species together, not Shepard. The Catalyst chooses the possible outcomes of Shepard's actions, not Shepard. In that sense, Shepard is no more to blame for the moral decisions of the Catalyst than the Reapers themselves are. Where Shepard is the forced agent of change, it cannot be said that he therefore becomes morally culpable for those actions, in my view.

This reminds me of Thane's outlook on contract killing.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir.

[alpha54]

At the end of the day, the Geth are still synthetic. They aren't people. They were created to be used as tools. Saving a single human life more than justifies wiping them out. Would you say I committed murder if I threw my laptop out the window? Please.

[Korubrus]

alpha54 wrote...

At the end of the day, the Geth are still synthetic. They aren't people. They were created to be used as tools. Saving a single human life more than justifies wiping them out. Would you say I committed murder if I threw my laptop out the window? Please.

Your laptop doesn't have consensus. The geth become AI's by the end anyway, indicitive of life. As EDI said "Are we ever more than our thaughts?". Well the Geth get a capability to think like a living creature.

I dare say your laptop is hardly an AI. Or even VI

[shepard1038]

The real genocide here is the Guardian. Because he has the power to stop the cycle, yet he thinks that his word and will is above everyone else and refers to organics as "chaos" and choses to wipe them out. And gives Shepard three choices that demand sacrifice. Why didn't he instead order the reapers to stop?. He takes advantage of Shepard and gives him three only solutions. When itself he is the problem and the chaos.

Modifié par shepard1038, 11 avril 2012 - 07:42 .