644 réponses à ce sujet

[silentwindfr]

dude you realize what are you talking about?

about the fact that a species in a video games can be really considerate like a species.... well from my view point i have commit a countless number of time a genocide, each time i have stop the game.

is the end of the universe each time i turn off the game.


well that said.... i will only say something, the believing of each person must be tolerate, as much than a one that don't think a synthetic can have a soul.... or one that think a synthetic can have a soul....

a bit of tolerance is....welcome here.

for comeback to the main subject

yep we do genocide a freaking big genocide.

[NickelToe]

silentwindfr wrote...

dude you realize what are you talking about?

about the fact that a species in a video games can be really considerate like a species.... well from my view point i have commit a countless number of time a genocide, each time i have stop the game.

is the end of the universe each time i turn off the game.


well that said.... i will only say something, the believing of each person must be tolerate, as much than a one that don't think a synthetic can have a soul.... or one that think a synthetic can have a soul....

a bit of tolerance is....welcome here.

for comeback to the main subject

yep we do genocide a freaking big genocide.

Soul not required for Genocide unless religious I guess...

People are there then a person orders or actions makes everyone of that type of people not be there means Genocide.  When you turn the game back on they are still there.  When you end the game without any further plans in that story to add gameplay and options then in the story, not real life, your hero just became a villain and did it by becoming a moron all of a sudden and trusting what the enemy told you.

[Cruders]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Because if I decide to kill a friend of mine to save a million people, I sacrifice my friend.  I'm actually a bit shocked that you'd unequivocally declare it murder.  It becomes a slippery slope.

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"?

Because refusing to acknowledge the term sacrifice implies that Shepard pays nothing for making the decision.  It means that when choosing destroy, Shepard equivalently goes "Whatever" to the Geth.  As far as I'm concerned, that is wrong.

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.

It really more seems like you're refusing to allow the usage of the word because you feel people are using it as a scape goat and your perception of the event should be applied to others.  Especially when I have not found a single definition that actually supports your rigid definition of the term sacrifice.  In fact, when presented with one that didn't have it, you were casually dismissive of it.

1. "
1 :[/b] the crime of deliberately killing a person [noncount]" "
 the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought "
Murder is murder bro.

2. Yeah he may be sacrificing the geth but he's still committing genocide.

3. yeah... no arguments on that point other than, still committing genocide.

[Allan Schumacher]

1 :the crime of deliberately killing a person [noncount]
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought "
Murder is murder bro.

Actually, it'd depend on whether or not I felt coerced by the circumstances. But that's neither here nor there.

[silentwindfr]

NickelToe wrote...

silentwindfr wrote...

dude you realize what are you talking about?

about the fact that a species in a video games can be really considerate like a species.... well from my view point i have commit a countless number of time a genocide, each time i have stop the game.

is the end of the universe each time i turn off the game.


well that said.... i will only say something, the believing of each person must be tolerate, as much than a one that don't think a synthetic can have a soul.... or one that think a synthetic can have a soul....

a bit of tolerance is....welcome here.

for comeback to the main subject

yep we do genocide a freaking big genocide.

Soul not required for Genocide unless religious I guess...

People are there then a person orders or actions makes everyone of that type of people not be there means Genocide.  When you turn the game back on they are still there.  When you end the game without any further plans in that story to add gameplay and options then in the story, not real life, your hero just became a villain and did it by becoming a moron all of a sudden and trusting what the enemy told you.

it was more sarcastic comment from my part, simply because i found silly how people fight over a video game idea.

more seriously it make me think mankind is still too young for accept different concept of life. when you see people fighting over the fact the synthetic are not being... it's kinda disturbing... how can we decide the value of a life.
we are far to be perfect then think we can decide of the value of a  life,  synthetic,  alien or anything else. is maybe a bit arrogant.

that said i simply think people must learn to take it easy, but maybe i'm wrong... i'm human after all and you know the proverb...

"error is human, pardon is divine" (i must admit i'm not sure english people say it like this. i'm french after all hehe)
" l'erreur est humaine mais le pardon est divin"

[silentwindfr]

Cruders wrote...
1 :[/b] the crime of deliberately killing a person [noncount]" "
 the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought "
Murder is murder bro.

in war time or...apocalyspe time like in mass effect law are often the last thing, like the morale, that the people think about.

Modifié par silentwindfr, 12 avril 2012 - 05:54 .

[kumquats]

shepard1038 wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Its not genocide to chose the destroy ending and sacrifice the geth because of these points;

1. Because Shepard didn't deliberately and calculated kill the Geth.

2. It was not Shepard's intent to kill the Geth.

3. The Geth, Edi and all the species were prepared to die to kill the reapers.

4. All the species, including the Geth who were fighting alongside Shepard on the final battle were
preparing to sacrifice themselves to kill the reapers. Why do you think when Shepard was talking
to the catalyst there was fighting outside, it was a fight to the death.

All the people here should really see my post.

In the worst case scenario, that is indeed true. In the best case scenario Shepard is given two other options. So the killing of Synthetics, was Shepard's choice.
But I wouldn't call it genocide either. Like I said before, let's call it ruthless calculus. 10 millions die, so another 20 millions can life. (or was it billions?)
The need of the many and all....

The thing that is boggles my mind is: How can anyone still see them as toasters after Rannoch?
I never tried to justify my Shepard, betraying the Krogans. It's harsh and ruthless, the same goes for the Geth.
Nothing wrong with that.

@Shallyah, I killed Mordin and Wrex. I'm a Monster mimimimi. Maybe someone will find a very small violin for you.

[shepard1038]

kumquats wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

Its not genocide to chose the destroy ending and sacrifice the geth because of these points;

1. Because Shepard didn't deliberately and calculated kill the Geth.

2. It was not Shepard's intent to kill the Geth.

3. The Geth, Edi and all the species were prepared to die to kill the reapers.

4. All the species, including the Geth who were fighting alongside Shepard on the final battle were
preparing to sacrifice themselves to kill the reapers. Why do you think when Shepard was talking
to the catalyst there was fighting outside, it was a fight to the death.

All the people here should really see my post.

In the worst case scenario, that is indeed true. In the best case scenario Shepard is given two other options. So the killing of Synthetics, was Shepard's choice.
But I wouldn't call it genocide either. Like I said before, let's call it ruthless calculus. 10 millions die, so another 20 millions can life. (or was it billions?)
The need of the many and all....

The thing that is boggles my mind is: How can anyone still see them as toasters after Rannoch?
I never tried to justify my Shepard, betraying the Krogans. It's harsh and ruthless, the same goes for the Geth.
Nothing wrong with that.

@Shallyah, I killed Mordin and Wrex. I'm a Monster mimimimi. Maybe someone will find a very small violin for you.

It was 10 billion die so another 20 billion can live and it was Garrus that said that and it was also Garrus that
called it ruthless calculus.lol

[Eterna]

I feel like people in this thread are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[kumquats]

shepard1038 wrote...

It was 10 billion die so another 20 billion can live and it was Garrus that said that and it was also Garrus that
called it ruthless calculus.lol

Yep. This is so foreshadowing, like Javik's comment about Shepard's honor.
Couldn't remember if he was talking about millions or billions.

[Joccaren]

shepard1038 wrote...

1.No the choice was kill the reapers, including the geth or control the reapers risking trillions of lives or transform
the galaxy so that synthetic life can live. The guadian never says that Shepard can live in that ending, so don't lie
and strech the truth.

Ahh, I fell for my own metagaming argument That's... awkward.
Nontheless, all are stated as ways to end the cycle, and Shepard has equal reason to believe each of them is true and will be effective. He chooses the one that wipes out a species.

2.Are you kidding me??? Because that logic is flawed like hell and doesn't apply on Shepards circustances

Shepard has a WMD that he has the controls to. He can use it to achieve his goals, destroying an entire species in the process. Likewise, in that example, I would have WMDs at my disposal, and could use them to achieve my goals, wiping out an entire race in the process.

3.So it isn't Genocide if a species tells you that they are prepared to die and fight with you and at the end they die.

Shepard pulled the trigger that killed the Geth. They were ready to die fighting the Reapers for Shepard, but were they ready to have themselves killed to stop the Reapers, or would they rather not die, and risk another solution.
Were the Geth in that room with Shepard, and knew about those other options, do you think they tell Shepard to kill them instead of picking an arguably better solution? Legion on Rannoch is your answer - if another way exists, they would fight to stay alive.

4.You better check a dictionary because the points that I maked changed if it is genocide or not. So if a species
tells you that they are prepared to sacrifice themselves to defeat the reapers and you end sacrificing them to
defeat the reapers is genocide???. Because if you say yes you proven my point.
By the definition of genocide nope it isn't genocide as crazy and flawed as you're logic is.

Genocide is not only killing on mass, they are more requirements for that to be genocide and I feel that that is
what people are forgetting.

Genocide: "
The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. "
Deliberate? Yes, there were other options available that were not taken, and instead Shepard opted to destroy the Geth. Destruction of an entire race or nation? Check. No argument there.

See above for the sacrifice yourself argument. Other options were available, and were the Geth there, they likely would have prefered a different solution.

[NickelToe]

silentwindfr wrote...

NickelToe wrote...

silentwindfr wrote...

dude you realize what are you talking about?

about the fact that a species in a video games can be really considerate like a species.... well from my view point i have commit a countless number of time a genocide, each time i have stop the game.

is the end of the universe each time i turn off the game.


well that said.... i will only say something, the believing of each person must be tolerate, as much than a one that don't think a synthetic can have a soul.... or one that think a synthetic can have a soul....

a bit of tolerance is....welcome here.

for comeback to the main subject

yep we do genocide a freaking big genocide.

Soul not required for Genocide unless religious I guess...

People are there then a person orders or actions makes everyone of that type of people not be there means Genocide.  When you turn the game back on they are still there.  When you end the game without any further plans in that story to add gameplay and options then in the story, not real life, your hero just became a villain and did it by becoming a moron all of a sudden and trusting what the enemy told you.

it was more sarcastic comment from my part, simply because i found silly how people fight over a video game idea.

more seriously it make me think mankind is still too young for accept different concept of life. when you see people fighting over the fact the synthetic are not being... it's kinda disturbing... how can we decide the value of a life.
we are far to be perfect then think we can decide of the value of a  life,  synthetic,  alien or anything else. is maybe a bit arrogant.

that said i simply think people must learn to take it easy, but maybe i'm wrong... i'm human after all and you know the proverb...

"error is human, pardon is divine" (i must admit i'm not sure english people say it like this. i'm french after all hehe)
" l'erreur est humaine mais le pardon est divin"

I totally get the idea that Shepherd might sacrifice others to beat the reapers.  The option to turn away from the kid would have made these endings stand on some more stable ground.

Standing to your ethics and/or morals sometimes gets you killed or in Commander Shepherds case you could totally lose by turning away (maybe, who know the options are not there.)

Give that option to deny everything Ghost Kid said and then yes Shepherds choice to commit or not commit genocide is reasonable and would be a clear decision point (EDIT: would clear up for the individual if it was genocide or not too by giving choice), some people view Geth as life, some dont.  Some people would not have a hard time doing "the hard math of war."  Some would stick to their guns and totally deny  Ghost kid whatever the consequences are, but if you deny killing the Geth the other options are morally ambiguous at best so there is no real way to step back.

Its the choice that matters and currently the ending only offers a varied way to force yourself on everyone else be it killing the Geth, forcing everyone to be the same race or becomming reaper god changing or forcing them to do your will (which its not clear to me what the blue ending means at all)

Modifié par NickelToe, 12 avril 2012 - 06:08 .

[zimm2142]

1.

Dear God, this place has turned into /b/!
Repent, lest ye be consumed in the fires of the dark lord mootykins, etc...

2.
Genocide as it is defined will occur in the destroy ending no matter what. It may not be a wanted side effect, but it is known and understood, based on the conversation with star-jar binks.

[shepard1038]

Joccaren wrote...

shepard1038 wrote...

1.No the choice was kill the reapers, including the geth or control the reapers risking trillions of lives or transform
the galaxy so that synthetic life can live. The guadian never says that Shepard can live in that ending, so don't lie
and strech the truth.

Ahh, I fell for my own metagaming argument That's... awkward.
Nontheless, all are stated as ways to end the cycle, and Shepard has equal reason to believe each of them is true and will be effective. He chooses the one that wipes out a species.

2.Are you kidding me??? Because that logic is flawed like hell and doesn't apply on Shepards circustances

Shepard has a WMD that he has the controls to. He can use it to achieve his goals, destroying an entire species in the process. Likewise, in that example, I would have WMDs at my disposal, and could use them to achieve my goals, wiping out an entire race in the process.

3.So it isn't Genocide if a species tells you that they are prepared to die and fight with you and at the end they die.

Shepard pulled the trigger that killed the Geth. They were ready to die fighting the Reapers for Shepard, but were they ready to have themselves killed to stop the Reapers, or would they rather not die, and risk another solution.
Were the Geth in that room with Shepard, and knew about those other options, do you think they tell Shepard to kill them instead of picking an arguably better solution? Legion on Rannoch is your answer - if another way exists, they would fight to stay alive.

4.You better check a dictionary because the points that I maked changed if it is genocide or not. So if a species
tells you that they are prepared to sacrifice themselves to defeat the reapers and you end sacrificing them to
defeat the reapers is genocide???. Because if you say yes you proven my point.
By the definition of genocide nope it isn't genocide as crazy and flawed as you're logic is.

Genocide is not only killing on mass, they are more requirements for that to be genocide and I feel that that is
what people are forgetting.

Genocide: "
The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. "
Deliberate? Yes, there were other options available that were not taken, and instead Shepard opted to destroy the Geth. Destruction of an entire race or nation? Check. No argument there.

See above for the sacrifice yourself argument. Other options were available, and were the Geth there, they likely would have prefered a different solution.

Is it really better risking trillons of lives or transforming the galaxy so that all synthetics can live.
They being on the final batte is you're answer. Thats another matter because the Quarian were going to wipe the
Geth and the Geth didn't attacked them first and didn't want to fight them. One thing is dying for no reason like
what the Quarian were doing to the geth killing them, when the geth don't want to fight them and another different
matter is dying to defeat the reapers and saved trillions of lives.
What about the intention that says on the dictionary. That is what  sepparates genocide from another thing.
How do you know what option the geth would have prefered???

[Joccaren]

shepard1038 wrote...

Is it really better risking trillons of lives or transforming the galaxy so that all synthetics can live.

Is no argument against genocide, and where does this 'risk' come from. Is it not risky to shoot expensive machinery on the whim of the agent controlling the Reapers? You are now asking if this Genocide is justified, and if it is more risky than other methods.

They being on the final batte is you're answer. Thats another matter because the Quarian were going to wipe the
Geth and the Geth didn't attacked them first and didn't want to fight them.

Ok, after finally managing to understand what you are saying here: No, it is not another matter.
Shepard decided to let the Quarians kill the Geth, the Geth representative wasn't happy with that, and attacked Shepard. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Quarians attacked first - what it had to do with was the fact that Legion's entire species was about to be wiped out when there was another option that would allow them to live.
The Geth don't want to die if there is another option. Who attacked first is irrelevant.

One thing is dying for no reason like what the Quarian were doing to the geth killing them, when the geth don't want to fight them and another different matter is dying to defeat the reapers and saved trillions of lives.

The same matter:
Geth are being wiped out so that Shepard's goals may be accomplished whilst there is another option to accomplish Shepard's goals that does not involve wiping out the Geth.

What about the intention that says on the dictionary. That is what  sepparates genocide from another thing.
How do you know what option the geth would have prefered???

 
"The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. "
Straight out of the dictionary.
As for your intent: See nukes and America. I did not aim to wipe out Americans, but it was a side affect of my actions. Did I commit Genocide?

Your final point only proves mine further, however: "How do you know what option the Geth would have prefered?"
I will point that back at you.
If a Geth were in the same room as Shepard, how do you know that it would concent to Destroy?

[phantomdasilva]

I think it is genocide. However is the genocide justifiable is the main question

Generally my views on ethics is that morality is predominantly based on your actions. However there may well be situation when the consequences are so grave that sometimes the ends justify the means. Where to draw line is difficult and will forever be debated but I do believe the line does exist.

we have a choice where control looks like a reaper trap (there's no reason why Illusive man can't control the reapers but shepard can and if the reapers were happy with Shepard taking control and stop harvesting organic life. Why doesn't the catalyst do it themselves?), synthesis is basically raping every life in the galaxy and changing them against their will. If we believe Bioware, doing nothing will mean everyone gets harvested (I'm still fond of the refusal ending)

Every option is bad and therefore you have to pick the least bad option. I consider destroy to be similar to the arrival DLC. It's genocide but the alternatives isn't any better.

[Elyiia]

This thread really has gone on too long. By definition Shepard commits genocide in The Arrival. This is fact. You don't even need to think Geth are a people. Batarians are clearly people.

If you choose destroy, you commit genocide on the Reapers. If Star-Jar is right you also commit genocide on the Geth.

Shepard's wants and feelings are irrelevant, by choosing destroy he picks a deliberate action which kills two different species (Or more if you want to say each Reaper is a nation )

It does not matter whether it saves lives or not, Shepard committed genocide.

[MeatShieldGriff]

Elyiia wrote...
Yeah, that's pretty much what Hitler said.
Synthetics are people, deal with it.

Yep, remember you're walking the line of fiction and reality.  In this game synthetics are alive when they've passed from the virtual intelligence stage to artificial intelligence stage they are alive.  So yes...you're committing genocide.

[JesseLee202]

Elyiia wrote...

This thread really has gone on too long. By definition Shepard commits genocide in The Arrival. This is fact. You don't even need to think Geth are a people. Batarians are clearly people.

If you choose destroy, you commit genocide on the Reapers. If Star-Jar is right you also commit genocide on the Geth.

Shepard's wants and feelings are irrelevant, by choosing destroy he picks a deliberate action which kills two different species (Or more if you want to say each Reaper is a nation )

It does not matter whether it saves lives or not, Shepard committed genocide.

Its the word genocide. In a real world situation, it is not acceptable. Period. This is after all, not real. So trying to blur the lines between reality and fiction is expected from some. I do agree that he technically commited a type of genocide, depending on how you roleplay your shep. My shep is moslty paragon, so he reluctantly chose destroy. MY shep felt he could not trust the star-brat, so he went with what the plan was since the beginning. He also felt that picking the other options would of been hypocritical of his ideals.

The Geth being destroyed was a negative effect from that option. If they were not included to die in that option, you really think people would choose the other ones? Thats what makes this game great, you can choose what to do, and you have your reasons for why you pick what. Whether they are good or bad reasons is up to you. But my shep did not choose destroy with pleasure and an evil smile, he felt the same burden he felt at the Bahak system. Trying to say sheps feeling are "irrelevant", is just plain wrong. 

[Ninjatroll]

Is it genocide? Yes, without a doubt. Could it still be justifiable? Yes.

I guess it depends on the morality you give your Shepard. For my ruthless/earthborn Shepard (a quite cold calculating hardass that made every choice in what would give the largest edge in the fight) was there never any question about it. The mission was destroy the reapers and everything else is expendeble to get the mission done. In this case the Geth would be sacrificed. Unfair? Yes. A awful thing to live with? Yes. But the alternetive is not accepteble as an outcome.

I actualy would prefer if it was Earth itself and not the Geth that was destroyed with the Reapers and only smaler pockets of humanity still alive. THAT would have been a tough choice. But still, my Shepard would had made the call.

This was the one thing the ending did sort of right. A hard choice between destruction (with huge collateral damage) or control (leaving less destruction but the thret might still be out there). If the execution of the end was better (no glowboy...) and more significant ressults depending on your actual choices in the games where there then I would be alot happier (btw i just ignore Synth-ending, there are only two choices as far as I see it).

And when someone already opened the can of worms that is real life comparisons then its quite obvious to point out that in every single genocide in history there is always someone who think the actions are justifiable. They are wrong as far as almost every (sane) person think, but to the ones acting out the genocide it is still something that would benefit someone else. Still the comparison is not very good since no genocide in history have been justified by "machinedevils will exterminate every life in the universe if we do not remove X", ME is on a slightly differend level to put it mildly...

[Gill Kaiser]

I'm disturbed by the number of people in this thread who seem to think that "it's not genocide" just because the race being killed are not the same as them. It's actually quite disgusting.

All sentient beings have a right to live.

[greggm2000]

Elyiia wrote...

This thread really has gone on too long. By definition Shepard commits genocide in The Arrival. This is fact. You don't even need to think Geth are a people. Batarians are clearly people.

If you choose destroy, you commit genocide on the Reapers. If Star-Jar is right you also commit genocide on the Geth.

Shepard's wants and feelings are irrelevant, by choosing destroy he picks a deliberate action which kills two different species (Or more if you want to say each Reaper is a nation )

It does not matter whether it saves lives or not, Shepard committed genocide.

The Batarian case isn't genocide. It is technically mass murder, but even then, if I were a Batarian in that situation, I'd want to be killed too.

In Arrival, Shep is forced to make a choice between acting and killing 300k Batarians instantly, and not acting and having those same 300k Batarians die over the next hour (or longer but very unpleasantly), and having the rest of the technological galaxy die over the following few years, including the entire Batarian species.

The choice made at the ending however, is a matter of genocide or not (and killing the geth would be genocide).... though Shep just won't know in advance if that's what happens or not... does she believe the godchild? It's a complicated situation.

[vinyalonn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I'm not sure the Geth do not value different things. Legion refers to itself in the first person (which he never does) by the end of the sequence on Rannoch. It also demonstrates the ability to have compassion and empathy when he says "Keelah Se'lai" to Tali.

It seems to me that last bit of uncertainty of how sentient the Geth were disappears at the end of Rannoch.

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.

[shepard1038]

Ninjatroll wrote...

Is it genocide? Yes, without a doubt. Could it still be justifiable? Yes.

I guess it depends on the morality you give your Shepard. For my ruthless/earthborn Shepard (a quite cold calculating hardass that made every choice in what would give the largest edge in the fight) was there never any question about it. The mission was destroy the reapers and everything else is expendeble to get the mission done. In this case the Geth would be sacrificed. Unfair? Yes. A awful thing to live with? Yes. But the alternetive is not accepteble as an outcome.

I actualy would prefer if it was Earth itself and not the Geth that was destroyed with the Reapers and only smaler pockets of humanity still alive. THAT would have been a tough choice. But still, my Shepard would had made the call.

This was the one thing the ending did sort of right. A hard choice between destruction (with huge collateral damage) or control (leaving less destruction but the thret might still be out there). If the execution of the end was better (no glowboy...) and more significant ressults depending on your actual choices in the games where there then I would be alot happier (btw i just ignore Synth-ending, there are only two choices as far as I see it).

And when someone already opened the can of worms that is real life comparisons then its quite obvious to point out that in every single genocide in history there is always someone who think the actions are justifiable. They are wrong as far as almost every (sane) person think, but to the ones acting out the genocide it is still something that would benefit someone else. Still the comparison is not very good since no genocide in history have been justified by "machinedevils will exterminate every life in the universe if we do not remove X", ME is on a slightly differend level to put it mildly...

No it isn't Genocide it is sacrifice and you can't compare real history genocide to what Shepard did.
So you prefer to kill destroy 11 billion people then destroy a space robot, you're insane you can't compare robots
to a person and to humans.

What is sacrifice:Sacrifice is the offering of food, objects or the lives of animals or people to a higher purpose
or 'giving something up'

What is genocide:Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",[1] though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars

It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole. Intent must be proven, otherwise the crime cannot be identified as genocide. Intent must be proven or the cirme cannot be identified as genocide.

So that settles the debate if it is genocide or not. That should be enough to convince people that it is not genocide.
For something to be considered genocide it has to be more than killing on mass murder.
Also the Government has to decide if it is genocide or not.

Modifié par shepard1038, 12 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[Tony208]

The fact that the ending can be interpreted this way is not a good thing imo, the game made you believe you were a big godamn hero leading up to that point.

Modifié par Tony208, 12 avril 2012 - 08:33 .