897 réponses à ce sujet

[RShara]

Kunari801 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today.  When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age).  I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.

-Polaris

That's why I say it's a "Pick your war crime ending".  It's not the way my Shepard would want to end his journey.  

Didn't you know that this is why it's called MASS EFFECT?

<_<

[CmnDwnWrkn]

nuculerman wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Destroy is the only ending that prima facia ends the threat of Reaper genocide forever and guarantees that the galaxy will be safe...at least today.  When the stake is the survival of your own species, genocide is acceptable (it's why genocide against the Darkspawn is acceptable in Dragon Age).  I hate the idea of destroying an entire species but the alternative is worse.

-Polaris

Bioware gave us no context for synthesis.  I decided to make the assumption, considering it was their canon ending, it wasn't the extreme change most of you are assuming.  And genocide against the Darkspawn is genocide against willful evil.  The Geth are in no way associated with the Reapers, and neither is EDI.  They have done everything in their power to help you fight them and are totally innocent.  You're trading a million innocent lives for the guarantee other lives will survive.  

I don't think you understand the basic concept life is infinitely valuable.

If you believe that "life" created with software is as valuable as organic life, then that significantly degrades the value of life.  Life is then nothing more than programming.

[Taboo]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.

I completely disagree.  No one in Japan was innocent (well except children).  By choosing to support a society waging a never ending war against the US, you were morally culpable for any retaliation against you.  And as for the children, the Japanese government, not the US government, condemned them to death.  We tested the bomb in brilliant fashion.  We made our intentions clear.  Surrender, or face the consquences.  They chose not to surrender.

The situation is not analagous at all to what happened in ME.  The fact that an in game character thought it was doesn't make it so.

I believe that it is repuganant as well. Some of my greatest teachers were from Japan and the bomb still has an impact there especially in Hiroshima where a playground still stands twisted and charred from the bomb, untouched even today.

What I am saying is that in times of great stress the old brain will take over. Human beings will always choose survival. People are animals. They are not high and mighty.

[Taboo]

Gyspy Jive wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 When I attend the Cannes film festival I expect a good degree of discussion because the films are so cerebral. But I know the director has a problem when the narrative is literally torn apart to get answers. This isn't speculation. It's an abject failure without any sort of information............

+1

Brilliantly stated.  

You guys should been there for the Antichrist debacle.

LOL.

[Skull Bearer]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.

I completely disagree.  No one in Japan was innocent (well except children).  By choosing to support a society waging a never ending war against the US, you were morally culpable for any retaliation against you.  And as for the children, the Japanese government, not the US government, condemned them to death.  We tested the bomb in brilliant fashion.  We made our intentions clear.  Surrender, or face the consquences.  They chose not to surrender.

The situation is not analagous at all to what happened in ME.  The fact that an in game character thought it was doesn't make it so.

What about the people imprisoned for political crimes? What about old people too weak to fight and unable to stand against the ruling regime? What about people who were just scared of what would happen to their families if they spoke up? What about people who would have fought back against the Empire but for some reason (illness, disability, etc) could not?

That was a revolting post.

[nuculerman]

MisterJB wrote...

Let me put it this way:

What if, rather than push a button to eliminate homosexuality, we could push a button that would eliminate homophobia?

If my only other option were to murder 1 or more innocent people?  I'd press the damn button.  Again, the choices aren't moral.  Not even a little.  The debate is what is the least immoral.

[BouncyCaitian]

Marcus Cole: 6 billion lives on Coriana. 3 billion lives on Centauri Prime. We have enough ships to make a stand at one of them, so which do you choose? It's numbers - cold, unsympathetic numbers. Let's just hope we pulled enough of the Vorlons away to give the Centauri a chance, or if they've gotten rid of any Shadow influences by now. Otherwise, I wouldn't give you 2 cents for their chances.

[jeff359]

BouncyCaitian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

To remove boundaries between species. No longer will words like "human" or "turian" or "geth" will set walls between us. Equality, peace.
I think it's beautiful.

And you fail at Diversity forever and have now become a homogonized drone......

The hell with that

Agreed, and the whole game has been about what you can accomplish if you work with different races, different people. Swaying Ash to your way of thinking in the first game about aliens on the ship. Collecting a crew across all races to defeat the collectors... but the game's main theme is now humans vs robots?  

It was even highlighted that the protheans were not perfect because they discouraged difference.

[adneate]

MisterJB wrote...
What if, rather than push a button to eliminate homosexuality, we could push a button that would eliminate homophobia?

Is it really any better though, we haven't really solved the problem of ignorance and intolerence by ourselves we've simply found a way to forcibly remove one aspect of it. It wasn't achieved and we as a society haven't evolved or grown as a result of it, we didn't come to the conclusion that it was wrong we were programmed to not do it anymore.

I wouldn't push it, progress has to be earned not given. Earning it is more important than the final outcome, it is how we truly understand the concept and have the tools to solve other problems.

[IanPolaris]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.

I completely disagree.  No one in Japan was innocent (well except children).  By choosing to support a society waging a never ending war against the US, you were morally culpable for any retaliation against you.  And as for the children, the Japanese government, not the US government, condemned them to death.  We tested the bomb in brilliant fashion.  We made our intentions clear.  Surrender, or face the consquences.  They chose not to surrender.

The situation is not analagous at all to what happened in ME.  The fact that an in game character thought it was doesn't make it so.

How about the people that suffered from radiation sickness afterwords?  The point is that in war sometimes you have to give orders taht kill 10 in order to save a thousand.  Even Captain Anderson (in ME1) states this.  You try to avoid such situations but you can not flinch from them in a command position when they arise.  Given the choice of ending an existential threat like the Reapers forever at the cost of one race (regardless of race), it's not a hard choice.  You end the threat forever.

-Polaris

[Kunari801]

BouncyCaitian wrote...

Marcus Cole: 6 billion lives on Coriana. 3 billion lives on Centauri Prime. We have enough ships to make a stand at one of them, so which do you choose? It's numbers - cold, unsympathetic numbers. Let's just hope we pulled enough of the Vorlons away to give the Centauri a chance, or if they've gotten rid of any Shadow influences by now. Otherwise, I wouldn't give you 2 cents for their chances.

I loved Babylon5

[nuculerman]

Skull Bearer wrote...

What about the people imprisoned for political crimes? What about old people too weak to fight and unable to stand against the ruling regime? What about people who were just scared of what would happen to their families if they spoke up? What about people who would have fought back against the Empire but for some reason (illness, disability, etc) could not?

That was a revolting post.

There are too many logical fallacies in your post to count.  Replace "children" with most of the examples you gave and you have my argument.  I didn't think I really had to spell out everyone who was innocent.  The one real exception is people too scared.  That does not morally recuse you.  By that logic, pretty much everyone committing mass genocide in **** Germany should be excused.  So I would have to say your opinion is the revolting one.

I'd elaborate more but I really don't want to get into a debate about Hiroshima.  That belongs on a different forum, and I've helped derail this topic too much already.

[Gyspy Jive]

nuculerman wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.

I completely disagree.  No one in Japan was innocent (well except children).  By choosing to support a society waging a never ending war against the US, you were morally culpable for any retaliation against you.  And as for the children, the Japanese government, not the US government, condemned them to death.  We tested the bomb in brilliant fashion.  We made our intentions clear.  Surrender, or face the consquences.  They chose not to surrender.

The situation is not analagous at all to what happened in ME.  The fact that an in game character thought it was doesn't make it so.

Yeah, because all of the Japanese people totally supported what their govenerment and military were doing. ****ing ingorant post, bro. 

[savionen]

jeff359 wrote...

BouncyCaitian wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

To remove boundaries between species. No longer will words like "human" or "turian" or "geth" will set walls between us. Equality, peace.
I think it's beautiful.

And you fail at Diversity forever and have now become a homogonized drone......

The hell with that

Agreed, and the whole game has been about what you can accomplish if you work with different races, different people. Swaying Ash to your way of thinking in the first game about aliens on the ship. Collecting a crew across all races to defeat the collectors... but the game's main theme is now humans vs robots?  

It was even highlighted that the protheans were not perfect because they discouraged difference.

That's what really bugs me.

The whole theme is how diversity is a good thing, working together for a common goal. Suddenly in the last 5 minutes, it's humans vs robots.

Modifié par savionen, 26 avril 2012 - 09:19 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

Taboo-XX wrote...
This is how animals function. This is why the bomb was dropped on Japan. It is unethical, repugnant and will plauge humanity until the end of days. It does however give credence to the lesson that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

Unpleasent. But that's how the world turns.

Just to throw a wrench into that, no matter what it comes down to one's opinion on his morality. Some people may be fine with synthesis, you are giving you DNA to the code of life and evolving the people around him. Instead of doing it over a period of time, it is instantanious. Think of all the diseases cures, aliments people have gone forever, the idea of rationalizing everything into such standards where (possibly) conflict is erradicated. Diversity could possibly be gone (it is assumption on our part) but new life has been built for an unknown future.

If you decide to control the Reapers you take over them in a hive mind state. You become thier overlord for and x period of time. You saved all organic and sythetic races. Still you subverted one races choice into what you want for them. Still you sacrificed yourself for the betterment of society as a whole. Cause of this peace could ensue, since that is the time when humans come together and form bonds like so. Who know what will happen maybe war will still rage, genocides or just starvation, it is nothing we know about.

To destroy everything you sacrifice youself and sythentic races (possibly it is not fully confirmed) to destroy the greatest threat know to the galaxy. You said it best so for me to repeat it, would be pointless.

Someone's morals can make anythng justifiable in their eyes. I have been in enought convos with people I know personally it can get into a very sticky mess since people can have different opinions on what is right and wrong. To distill it though just to rape, control, and kill makes nothing clean, and with no evidence we currently have on what does happen afterwards it gets into a quarrel on how we interpret it (not in the way Biowares wants too I assume). 

So he could be trolling stoking flames by giving half-cryptic answers to people. Also it is his choice of the matter, it does not make it wrong if he feels it is the best one, since it is his opinion. Hell asking the other writers what they think could yield a different answer. Looking on the boards we see some variance. It is all about "YRMV".

[Reidbynature]

Kunari801 wrote...

BouncyCaitian wrote...

Marcus Cole: 6 billion lives on Coriana. 3 billion lives on Centauri Prime. We have enough ships to make a stand at one of them, so which do you choose? It's numbers - cold, unsympathetic numbers. Let's just hope we pulled enough of the Vorlons away to give the Centauri a chance, or if they've gotten rid of any Shadow influences by now. Otherwise, I wouldn't give you 2 cents for their chances.

I loved Babylon5

Yaaaaaay. 

[IanPolaris]

Given three repulsive choices, remember that the starbrat goes out of his way to steer you away from destroy. Given that starbrat is the enemy, that's the choice you should pick.

-Polaris

[nuculerman]

IanPolaris wrote...

How about the people that suffered from radiation sickness afterwords?  The point is that in war sometimes you have to give orders taht kill 10 in order to save a thousand.  Even Captain Anderson (in ME1) states this.  You try to avoid such situations but you can not flinch from them in a command position when they arise.  Given the choice of ending an existential threat like the Reapers forever at the cost of one race (regardless of race), it's not a hard choice.  You end the threat forever.

-Polaris

Thank you for disagreeing with me without calling me revolting.

Again, my argument is simply the Japanese government is morally responsible for those sick people, not the US government.  You can disagree with me, as is your right.  I'm simply stating my opinion, to help explain why I think synthesis is less immoral than destroy.

As for war, there are obviously times when you have to make a choice, neither of them moral.  I'm not disputing that.  In fact, as bad as the ending is it highlights this well.  We were given three choices, none of them moral.

[nitefyre410]

IanPolaris wrote...

Given three repulsive choices, remember that the starbrat goes out of his way to steer you away from destroy. Given that starbrat is the enemy, that's the choice you should pick.

-Polaris

 

Or ... I could just you know... turn the game off..

The power button the utlimate I win button against the Reapers and the Catalyst:D  

Though I jest - I says this because what bothers me beyond anything else is given the time Bioware had to come up with conclusion to the series...the best they  could do is 3 repulsive choices. Where you, I and  almost everyone in this these could come up with ending that is believable and has point..in about 5 mintues. 

[Taboo]

 More from my message bag.

Hehe, thank you once again! I'll resist the urge towards further pony-express style posting (that way lies madness), I'm sure you have more then enough to say yourself without speaking for me as well.

For your own edification, I found this tweet... mind boggling;
https://twitter.com/...619323212070912
"@JessicaMerizan So it will only be destroy in which shepard can survive and save the normandy crew at this point, right?
@MrBlazenGlazen yeah you'd want the destroy option :)"

Uh... isn't this the same "no official information" account of Merizan? This seems like some pretty important information there. I know you've commented before on the PR craziness they seem to be indulging in, and sometimes I just don't understand what they are doing. This info is explosive, and she just tweets it?

Thanks again, and have a great day!

[Kunari801]

Reidbynature wrote...

Kunari801 wrote...

BouncyCaitian wrote...

Marcus Cole: 6 billion lives on Coriana. 3 billion lives on Centauri Prime. We have enough ships to make a stand at one of them, so which do you choose? It's numbers - cold, unsympathetic numbers. Let's just hope we pulled enough of the Vorlons away to give the Centauri a chance, or if they've gotten rid of any Shadow influences by now. Otherwise, I wouldn't give you 2 cents for their chances.

I loved Babylon5

Yaaaaaay. 

There are so many great quotes from B5  

G'Quon wrote, "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities; it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain." 

[MisterJB]

adneate wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
What if, rather than push a button to eliminate homosexuality, we could push a button that would eliminate homophobia?

Is it really any better though, we haven't really solved the problem of ignorance and intolerence by ourselves we've simply found a way to forcibly remove one aspect of it. It wasn't achieved and we as a society haven't evolved or grown as a result of it, we didn't come to the conclusion that it was wrong we were programmed to not do it anymore.

I wouldn't push it, progress has to be earned not given. Earning it is more important than the final outcome, it is how we truly understand the concept and have the tools to solve other problems.

But what if we never earn it? And even if we do, how many people will suffer in the meanwhile?
Instead, we can push one button and make a better world. Regarless of how ludicrious that sounds.
I believe that the end result; in this case, the acceptance of other people's differences; is more important that how it was achieved.

[SiriusXI]

nuculerman wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

My first thought, when the child explained synthesis was, "This is communism."
Sure, nature works the communistic way(=>green eyes?), but organics naturally don't. And by suddenly forcing communism on a group of people, no matter what reasoning behind it, whether ending a conflict, is no better than Lenin, Stalin, Honecker and all the other bandits.

Yes, young people tend to prefer the communistic ways, but with regard to world's history in the 20th century, 'experimental evidence' shows, that pure communism doesn't work with humans, and therefore probably all organics.

So yeah, Synthesis is a clear case of communism.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what communism is.

this!!!

[Mylia Stenetch]

nuculerman wrote...
(snip) You can disagree with me, as is your right.  I'm simply stating my opinion, to help explain why I think synthesis is less immoral than destroy.

See here is your problem you are trying to say something is less immoral. It is less immoral in your opinion, and it is their opinion to dissagree. We do not have any facts on what is better or not. We are animals, monsters, and genius all wraped in a flimsy skin. When it comes to the point of stress and we have the three options in from of us with no context on what will happen our own morals (not societies) will kick in, and we will justify whatever choice we make as the real moral one.