644 réponses à ce sujet

[Warrior Craess]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Based on this thread it seems to me that a lot of the people who don't like the ending have a real problem with moral ambiguity. They want to believe that when faced with a decision there is one right answer and all other answers are wrong or inferior.

I think it was a bold move on Bioware's part to challenge this belief, but maybe it's a lesson that gamers weren't ready to learn.

I get moral ambiguity, it's why I liked Arrival so much. I could even sacrifice the Geth if the plot line made a lick of sence. If my choice (not granted by a godlike being) were between destroying all artificial life along with the reapers or allowing the reapers to continue genociding all races, and subverting all synthetics... then the geth would have to go bye bye,  It's a terrible desicion to have to make. Just don't try telling me that I have to destroy the geth becuase a synthetic race wants me to believe that the geth will inevitably try to destroy all organic life.  The proof just isn't in the pudding.

[greggm2000]

Skull Bearer wrote...

greggm2000 wrote...

bathor wrote...

@greggm2000 
Sorry my friend but i just cant agree. in ME2 is clearly stated in the dlc that explosion of mass reley will destroy the star system in which it is located.
So becouse you just cant simply change the law of physic (yes i know its SCFI but lets be resonable) if thing explodes which has such a power like it is sad in me2 it just has to be the same. All mas releys are build same, so it gives you the conclusion that all are based on same law of physic means explosion = destory the star system.

schwaraj wrote...
Like it or not, Arrival established that the destruction of a relay is
the same as a super nova going off in a solar system. It doesn't matter
that the energy pulse thing at the end is "different" then a giant
asteroid hitting a relay, the result has already been defined. Plus, you
see from a GALAXY WIDE VIEW that the energy pulse hits nearly
everything. Bioware coming out and saying that the relay destruction is
"different" is just their attempt at damage control. Unless the game
provides an answer, the relay destruction = mass genocide.

My point is that there's a difference between a controlled explosion and an uncontrolled one.

An uncontrolled explosion is the asteroid strike. That will cause a supernova-level explosion, as was established in Arrival. Shep knows this.

A controlled explosion is what happens in the ending. The Mass Relays themselves are designed for this specific event. It gets a beam of energy of unknown characteristics, which uses and co-opts that energy beam, and cascades it to the next relay. We assume that doing this causes an overload (again, the Mass Relays are designed for this exact occurence), and causes the relay to at least partly explode. We still don't know how much damage, because the camera shifts away mid-explosion. We are told that the mass relays will be non-functional, which is only true IF the godchild was telling the truth AND was 100% accurate as to the results (note that while the relays and the citadel were designed for this eventuality, it's never been tested)

Given that mass extinction would be contrary to the intent of the godchild and/or the original builders of the mass relay network, I think it's safe to say that the explosion did not cause that end result.

I don't think it goes against canon to say that the technological state of things will be better than most people are expecting... but of course we don't know, and we won't know until the Ending DLC comes out at the earliest.

Unfortunately, we have to go with what we've seen in the series. There is no evidence that what happened to the relays was any more controlled than what happened in Arrival. We have only seen one relay destroyed: it took out a solar system. Saying it won't this time is unfounded speculation.

More to the point, at the time Shepard is making the choice, he has no evidence it won't either. The f***ing reaperkid didn't exactly provide much.

From Shep's point of view, it would be totally irrational for the godchild to say that the mass relays were going to be destroyed while at the same time them being destroyed wiping out the star system that they're in. If their goal was to wipe out all life, they could have done so at any time. Therefore, the godchild must have a way to prevent the mass relays from causing a supernova... which itself is plausible, because the godchild (or it's creators) designed and built the existing mass relays in the first place.

From our point of view, viewing the ending, we see the central part of the sol system mass relay exploding, the fireball expanding, but the superstructure at one end still being undamaged from the blast. If the superstructure was not blown apart by the blast, it's reasonable to say that that rules out a supernova-like event. In addition, if you compare the two explosions (ending vs. arrival), they look very different.

And lastly, from a "metagaming" point of view, it would make no sense for Bioware to destroy the galaxy, since that would preclude any further content.

[Skull Bearer]

greggm2000 wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

greggm2000 wrote...

bathor wrote...

@greggm2000 
Sorry my friend but i just cant agree. in ME2 is clearly stated in the dlc that explosion of mass reley will destroy the star system in which it is located.
So becouse you just cant simply change the law of physic (yes i know its SCFI but lets be resonable) if thing explodes which has such a power like it is sad in me2 it just has to be the same. All mas releys are build same, so it gives you the conclusion that all are based on same law of physic means explosion = destory the star system.

schwaraj wrote...
Like it or not, Arrival established that the destruction of a relay is
the same as a super nova going off in a solar system. It doesn't matter
that the energy pulse thing at the end is "different" then a giant
asteroid hitting a relay, the result has already been defined. Plus, you
see from a GALAXY WIDE VIEW that the energy pulse hits nearly
everything. Bioware coming out and saying that the relay destruction is
"different" is just their attempt at damage control. Unless the game
provides an answer, the relay destruction = mass genocide.

My point is that there's a difference between a controlled explosion and an uncontrolled one.

An uncontrolled explosion is the asteroid strike. That will cause a supernova-level explosion, as was established in Arrival. Shep knows this.

A controlled explosion is what happens in the ending. The Mass Relays themselves are designed for this specific event. It gets a beam of energy of unknown characteristics, which uses and co-opts that energy beam, and cascades it to the next relay. We assume that doing this causes an overload (again, the Mass Relays are designed for this exact occurence), and causes the relay to at least partly explode. We still don't know how much damage, because the camera shifts away mid-explosion. We are told that the mass relays will be non-functional, which is only true IF the godchild was telling the truth AND was 100% accurate as to the results (note that while the relays and the citadel were designed for this eventuality, it's never been tested)

Given that mass extinction would be contrary to the intent of the godchild and/or the original builders of the mass relay network, I think it's safe to say that the explosion did not cause that end result.

I don't think it goes against canon to say that the technological state of things will be better than most people are expecting... but of course we don't know, and we won't know until the Ending DLC comes out at the earliest.

Unfortunately, we have to go with what we've seen in the series. There is no evidence that what happened to the relays was any more controlled than what happened in Arrival. We have only seen one relay destroyed: it took out a solar system. Saying it won't this time is unfounded speculation.

More to the point, at the time Shepard is making the choice, he has no evidence it won't either. The f***ing reaperkid didn't exactly provide much.

From Shep's point of view, it would be totally irrational for the godchild to say that the mass relays were going to be destroyed while at the same time them being destroyed wiping out the star system that they're in. If their goal was to wipe out all life, they could have done so at any time. Therefore, the godchild must have a way to prevent the mass relays from causing a supernova... which itself is plausible, because the godchild (or it's creators) designed and built the existing mass relays in the first place.

From our point of view, viewing the ending, we see the central part of the sol system mass relay exploding, the fireball expanding, but the superstructure at one end still being undamaged from the blast. If the superstructure was not blown apart by the blast, it's reasonable to say that that rules out a supernova-like event. In addition, if you compare the two explosions (ending vs. arrival), they look very different.

And lastly, from a "metagaming" point of view, it would make no sense for Bioware to destroy the galaxy, since that would preclude any further content.

We are talking about a being who thought that the best way to stop synthetics wiping out organic life is to periodically wipe out organic life. Even bypassing any evidence against the Mass Relays exploding (there is none, just supposition), the reaperkid doesn't seem like a very reliable source of information, particularly since it hasn't exactly had much of a track record when it comes to not killing organic life.

[darthoptimus003]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

they started it so yeah give them what they gave to many races before
a whuppinlike they aint never had

[JesseLee202]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Assuming the Geth would not be destroyed, is it still right to genocide the Reapers?

they started it so yeah give them what they gave to many races before
a whuppinlike they aint never had

All I ever wanted was to kill the reapers, and not die trying (stupid autodialog<_<)

[darthoptimus003]

oh and the reapers that wouldnt be concederd as genocid i like to think of it as vengful justice for all the races that came before who they Murdered
so yeah its time to show them exaclly who they are messing with
to bad the ending didnt let us

[JesseLee202]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

oh and the reapers that wouldnt be concederd as genocid i like to think of it as vengful justice for all the races that came before who they Murdered
so yeah its time to show them exaclly who they are messing with
to bad the ending didnt let us

I agree. But other people here get all technical about the whole issue with the word "genocide". 

[darthoptimus003]

well theres still hope maybe

[darthoptimus003]

i always did like that stupid stament
"i created synthetics to kill organics to keep orangics from beining killed by syntetics"
i laugh EVERY time i think about that. it just to funny not to

[M0keys]

Warrior Craess wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Based on this thread it seems to me that a lot of the people who don't like the ending have a real problem with moral ambiguity. They want to believe that when faced with a decision there is one right answer and all other answers are wrong or inferior.

I think it was a bold move on Bioware's part to challenge this belief, but maybe it's a lesson that gamers weren't ready to learn.

I get moral ambiguity, it's why I liked Arrival so much. I could even sacrifice the Geth if the plot line made a lick of sence. If my choice (not granted by a godlike being) were between destroying all artificial life along with the reapers or allowing the reapers to continue genociding all races, and subverting all synthetics... then the geth would have to go bye bye,  It's a terrible desicion to have to make. Just don't try telling me that I have to destroy the geth becuase a synthetic race wants me to believe that the geth will inevitably try to destroy all organic life.  The proof just isn't in the pudding.

The only difference is that when it's interactive and immersive as it is, the player's own "story" comes into effect.

You can give us "morally ambiguous" choices, but in most cases our own morals are pretty clearly defined and you'll just throw us into a firey rage if you disregard us.

[greggm2000]

Skull Bearer wrote...

greggm2000 wrote...

Skull Bearer wrote...

greggm2000 wrote...

bathor wrote...

@greggm2000 
Sorry my friend but i just cant agree. in ME2 is clearly stated in the dlc that explosion of mass reley will destroy the star system in which it is located.
So becouse you just cant simply change the law of physic (yes i know its SCFI but lets be resonable) if thing explodes which has such a power like it is sad in me2 it just has to be the same. All mas releys are build same, so it gives you the conclusion that all are based on same law of physic means explosion = destory the star system.

schwaraj wrote...
Like it or not, Arrival established that the destruction of a relay is
the same as a super nova going off in a solar system. It doesn't matter
that the energy pulse thing at the end is "different" then a giant
asteroid hitting a relay, the result has already been defined. Plus, you
see from a GALAXY WIDE VIEW that the energy pulse hits nearly
everything. Bioware coming out and saying that the relay destruction is
"different" is just their attempt at damage control. Unless the game
provides an answer, the relay destruction = mass genocide.

My point is that there's a difference between a controlled explosion and an uncontrolled one.

An uncontrolled explosion is the asteroid strike. That will cause a supernova-level explosion, as was established in Arrival. Shep knows this.

A controlled explosion is what happens in the ending. The Mass Relays themselves are designed for this specific event. It gets a beam of energy of unknown characteristics, which uses and co-opts that energy beam, and cascades it to the next relay. We assume that doing this causes an overload (again, the Mass Relays are designed for this exact occurence), and causes the relay to at least partly explode. We still don't know how much damage, because the camera shifts away mid-explosion. We are told that the mass relays will be non-functional, which is only true IF the godchild was telling the truth AND was 100% accurate as to the results (note that while the relays and the citadel were designed for this eventuality, it's never been tested)

Given that mass extinction would be contrary to the intent of the godchild and/or the original builders of the mass relay network, I think it's safe to say that the explosion did not cause that end result.

I don't think it goes against canon to say that the technological state of things will be better than most people are expecting... but of course we don't know, and we won't know until the Ending DLC comes out at the earliest.

Unfortunately, we have to go with what we've seen in the series. There is no evidence that what happened to the relays was any more controlled than what happened in Arrival. We have only seen one relay destroyed: it took out a solar system. Saying it won't this time is unfounded speculation.

More to the point, at the time Shepard is making the choice, he has no evidence it won't either. The f***ing reaperkid didn't exactly provide much.

From Shep's point of view, it would be totally irrational for the godchild to say that the mass relays were going to be destroyed while at the same time them being destroyed wiping out the star system that they're in. If their goal was to wipe out all life, they could have done so at any time. Therefore, the godchild must have a way to prevent the mass relays from causing a supernova... which itself is plausible, because the godchild (or it's creators) designed and built the existing mass relays in the first place.

From our point of view, viewing the ending, we see the central part of the sol system mass relay exploding, the fireball expanding, but the superstructure at one end still being undamaged from the blast. If the superstructure was not blown apart by the blast, it's reasonable to say that that rules out a supernova-like event. In addition, if you compare the two explosions (ending vs. arrival), they look very different.

And lastly, from a "metagaming" point of view, it would make no sense for Bioware to destroy the galaxy, since that would preclude any further content.

We are talking about a being who thought that the best way to stop synthetics wiping out organic life is to periodically wipe out organic life. Even bypassing any evidence against the Mass Relays exploding (there is none, just supposition), the reaperkid doesn't seem like a very reliable source of information, particularly since it hasn't exactly had much of a track record when it comes to not killing organic life.

That's relevant when talking about what Shep knows, and what she chooses to do, and indeed, my Shep didn't trust her much because of that "logic". Still, there's a jump from "it's lying" or "it's framing things this way to get me to make the choice it wants", or even "it's glitched" and something that would make everything its doing totally pointless. Even if it's glitched, its creators weren't, and it wouldn't have been glitched originally.

Fortunately, we can see things Shep can't. We know the sol system (and by extension, the galaxy) remains intact.

[darthoptimus003]

controled explosion ???? huh ???? seriously
in all 3 endings bye bye relays, BOOM no more relays debre everywhere
gallactic genocide

[SilentWolfie]

I guess I was a bit late joining this.

a) Yeah, Shephard committed genocide.

- Definition: Genocide
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Shephard deliberately killed the Geth, reapers. "Sacrifice" is a passable noun to describe his actions in some POV though.

I once watched a movie, about a terrorist and counter terrorist. Terrorist had a nuclear bomb. Counter terrorist tortures terrorist's kids, shooting his wife, and tries to get the bomb. The ones watching the counter terrorist ask him where the line should be drawn.

Will you commit murder with your own hands to save billions? Uncertain. When it comes to survival or something like that, people are willing to overlook your errors/faulty logic.

c) The ending however, sucks. The logic where starchild created synthetics to kill organics to stop organics from creating synthetics who will eventually kill organics is one of the WORST logic ever. It's just not plausible, and even if it does, it just spoil the ME universe for being stupid. Yeah, it's really...... very stupid.

It's like a child's logic of being immature and not understanding things, and evolution should have wised up the aliens or something from creating Reapers. There was no great truth or revelation about the Reapers, spoiling sovereign's mystery as well as Shephard (accepting starchild just like that, lol). This was just horrible writing, and honestly I will sack the writer in a heartbeat for putting this in the ending.

Not to mention Deus ex machina, and taking Shephard out in the final moments for a different pov writing.

[M0keys]

SilentWolfie wrote...

I guess I was a bit late joining this.

a) Yeah, Shephard committed genocide.

- Definition: Genocide
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Shephard deliberately killed the Geth, reapers. "Sacrifice" is a passable noun to describe his actions in some POV though.

I once watched a movie, about a terrorist and counter terrorist. Terrorist had a nuclear bomb. Counter terrorist tortures terrorist's kids, shooting his wife, and tries to get the bomb. The ones watching the counter terrorist ask him where the line should be drawn.

Will you commit murder with your own hands to save billions? Uncertain. When it comes to survival or something like that, people are willing to overlook your errors/faulty logic.

c) The ending however, sucks. The logic where starchild created synthetics to kill organics to stop organics from creating synthetics who will eventually kill organics is one of the WORST logic ever. It's just not plausible, and even if it does, it just spoil the ME universe for being stupid. Yeah, it's really...... very stupid.

It's like a child's logic of being immature and not understanding things, and evolution should have wised up the aliens or something from creating Reapers. There was no great truth or revelation about the Reapers, spoiling sovereign's mystery as well as Shephard (accepting starchild just like that, lol). This was just horrible writing, and honestly I will sack the writer in a heartbeat for putting this in the ending.

Not to mention Deus ex machina, and taking Shephard out in the final moments for a different pov writing.

I look forward to the protagonist of ME4 - Shepharder.

[Virginian]

Who said Shepard committed genocide?

Destroy endeing results in all sentient synthetics are wiped out.

If you fail to get peace between the quarians & geth, then one side wipes out the other.

Those are the very definitions of genocide.

Bioware didn't say it they showed it clear as day.

Bioware condones genocide.

[taliefer]

The Irish Man wrote...

 When the relays blew up it wasn't like the exposion from the arrival relay. The relays simply fell apart leaving all the races stranded in their own systems. During the destroy ending Shepard only kills all synthetics. The star child never said he would kill all life. The explosions from the individual relays most likely transported everyone to different places as seen with the Normandy. I'm pretty sure everyone didn't die because the alliance soldiers were stil on Earth after the blast.

When Shepard kills all synthetics can we call it a genocide or a sacrifice? I'm calling it a sacrifice because even though the Geth are a sentient form of mechanized life they are not organic. Shepard killing off the Batarians is a genocide but he did it as a sacrifice. I believe that Shepard in no way is committing genocide. Feel free to discuss. 

problem is, the only time we see a mass relay destroyed, it results in the huge explosion. you cant then destroy every mass relay in the galaxy, and not have us use the only other evidence we are provided with as basis for our assumptions of what happens when a relay is destroyed.

[greggm2000]

Virginian wrote...

Who said Shepard committed genocide?

Destroy endeing results in all sentient synthetics are wiped out.

If you fail to get peace between the quarians & geth, then one side wipes out the other.

Those are the very definitions of genocide.

Bioware didn't say it they showed it clear as day.

Bioware condones genocide.

Bioware doesn't condone anything one way or another. It's a story, not a statement of corporate or personal belief.

[GothamLord]

Bioware doesnt condone genocide, they just stand by a story that promotes such actions as "art"

[greggm2000]

taliefer wrote...

The Irish Man wrote...

 When the relays blew up it wasn't like the exposion from the arrival relay. The relays simply fell apart leaving all the races stranded in their own systems. During the destroy ending Shepard only kills all synthetics. The star child never said he would kill all life. The explosions from the individual relays most likely transported everyone to different places as seen with the Normandy. I'm pretty sure everyone didn't die because the alliance soldiers were stil on Earth after the blast.

When Shepard kills all synthetics can we call it a genocide or a sacrifice? I'm calling it a sacrifice because even though the Geth are a sentient form of mechanized life they are not organic. Shepard killing off the Batarians is a genocide but he did it as a sacrifice. I believe that Shepard in no way is committing genocide. Feel free to discuss. 

problem is, the only time we see a mass relay destroyed, it results in the huge explosion. you cant then destroy every mass relay in the galaxy, and not have us use the only other evidence we are provided with as basis for our assumptions of what happens when a relay is destroyed.

That's what Shep sees, yes. On the other hand, Shep understands basic logic and how to weigh probabilities in war., and how irrational that would be as a side-effect of the choice that the godchild forces her to make. Still, what would have been nice to see (but we didn't), is Shep questioning the godchild on this very matter. Maybe in the ending DLC, we'll get a chance to.

[AkeasharK]

Would destroying all the Talkie Toasters in the universe be genocide?

At least they'd go to Silicon Heaven!

Modifié par AkeasharK, 13 avril 2012 - 03:34 .

[clipped_wolf]

If you want to get into semantics, not all genocidal acts are (solely) mass murder, and not all mass murders are genocide (could be another war crime like 'ethnic cleansing').
And the Geth, being synthetic, are unable to reproduce by passing on their genetic material to the next generation. Therefore, genocide is impossible.
So, if you take the red option you are merely destroying a large group of rational, self-determining, self-aware intelligences. Once again, not all mass murders are genocide if you want to get picky on semantics.

[GothamLord]

clipped_wolf wrote...

If you want to get into semantics, not all genocidal acts are (solely) mass murder, and not all mass murders are genocide (could be another war crime like 'ethnic cleansing').
And the Geth, being synthetic, are unable to reproduce by passing on their genetic material to the next generation. Therefore, genocide is impossible.
So, if you take the red option you are merely destroying a large group of rational, self-determining, self-aware intelligences. Once again, not all mass murders are genocide if you want to get picky on semantics.

Now is genocide impossible when relating to the Geth??

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The Destory option is the destruction of a culture.  

Blowing up the Relay that kills around 500,000 Batarians is Mass Murder but doesnt destory the entire race.

[Allan Schumacher]

Bioware condones genocide.

I don't believe this is a fair statement in the slightest and I think it is a counterproductive statement in terms of trying to create a dialogue.

That is all I will say on the matter.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[Elyiia]

GothamLord wrote...

clipped_wolf wrote...

If you want to get into semantics, not all genocidal acts are (solely) mass murder, and not all mass murders are genocide (could be another war crime like 'ethnic cleansing').
And the Geth, being synthetic, are unable to reproduce by passing on their genetic material to the next generation. Therefore, genocide is impossible.
So, if you take the red option you are merely destroying a large group of rational, self-determining, self-aware intelligences. Once again, not all mass murders are genocide if you want to get picky on semantics.

Now is genocide impossible when relating to the Geth??

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The Destory option is the destruction of a culture.  

Blowing up the Relay that kills around 500,000 Batarians is Mass Murder but doesnt destory the entire race.

Blowing up the relay is also genocide. The whole definition of genocide is:

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Though I guess you could argue that 500,000 Batarians isn't a large enough number to qualify as part seeing as it's never been determined how much a "part" is.

[DubVee12]

JesseLee202 wrote...

My last part was only refering to when people actually choose [allow upload] and let the Quarians die, off topic i know, my bad. But as to my other argument, the Geth did indeed blow their chance in my opinion, heres why...

1. Eden Prime. (Heretics are still Geth.)

2. The 2nd time they run to the Reapers for help. (Even if they were in danger of being wiped out that is a bad move and endangers everyone else!)

3. Legion is not honest and does not tell the entire truth in ME3. (He shouldn't have to lie to shep, but he does anyway. I mean, isn't Legion sorta shep's friend by now?)

4. (This is only if you choose to save the organics over machines) He tries to strangle you to death...

I do not think that the Quarians are completely blameless for this war, but the Geth commited many atrocities. Too many for me to give them another chance. I respect your opinion but I disagree. 

1. You are given the chance to destroy the heretics in ME2, so in that case heretic Geth  do not = Geth.

2. What would you have them do then? Let the Quarians kill them all? For arguments sake here's an example: Let's the the Turians finally decide they're sick of humanity and start a war against us. They've already annihilated Eden Prime and Terra Nova and are pressing to take Earth. The other races in the galaxy are too busy or just don't care to intervene, but the Reapers offer you aid that will allow the Alliance to defeat the Turians and survive. Would you take the offer or risk humanity's extinction?

3) A fair point, this was confusing to me a well.

*Edit: to clarify my position, I made peace between the two because I found both sides to be at fault. And I do believe killing the Geth is genocide.

Modifié par DubVee12, 13 avril 2012 - 06:24 .