933 réponses à ce sujet

[KotorEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Typical you can't win so you start resorting to insults.  I am just grounded in reality. 

Are you familiar with what a logical fallacy is?

Tell me what you would do with ME 3 right now if you were bioware.  Also keep it civil

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Typical you can't win so you start resorting to insults.  I am just grounded in reality. 

Are you familiar with what a logical fallacy is?

Tell me what you would do with ME 3 right now if you were bioware.  Also keep it civil

Please. Let's keep in mind that you are always the first to start getting huffy and lobbing your passive aggressive nonsense.

You answer my question, I'll answer yours.

[Fiery Phoenix]

It's truly remarkable how many people apparently can't tell the difference between collateral damage and genocide.

[Pacifien]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...
It's truly remarkable how many people apparently can't tell the difference between collateral damage and genocide.

Semantics.

[B.Shep]

Genophage was a genocide attempt, but Geth were collateral damage on destroy ending.

[Pacifien]

B.Shep wrote...
Genophage was a genocide attempt, but Geth were collateral damage on destroy ending.

Yes, but imagine someone like Admiral Koris discovering that Commander Shepard had been offered another way that could have saved an entire race of people (the Geth) at the cost of only one man (Shepard)? To Koris, what Shepard did was genocide. Doesn't really matter if Shepard did not desire to destroy anything but the Reapers, he still deliberately did so.

[Fiery Phoenix]

B.Shep wrote...

Genophage was a genocide attempt, but Geth were collateral damage on destroy ending.

Exactly my point.

I'm starting to have it with folks acting as though the geth dying was a genocide on my part. It wasn't; it was collateral damage - an unfortunate byproduct of your choice. If anything, you genocided the Reapers, not the geth.

But I'm done trying to explain my stance as to why I prefer Destroy.

[Miekkas]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

It's truly remarkable how many people apparently can't tell the difference between collateral damage and genocide.

gen·o·cide

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

The harsh reality is that the Destroy Ending involves Shepard choosing a course of action that he/she knows will lead to the destruction of a now sentient race of beings aka the geth. The act performed rather accurately fulfills the definition of genocide whether we like it or not. We shouldn't jump through mental hurdles of semantics to try and fool ourselves that we committed anything less. We can either accept the reality that Shepard made a choice that resulted in genocide, or fool ourselves into thinking Shepard didn't but reality will speak for itself regardless by the deafening silence of a race that is now extinct. Collateral damage and genocide are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I did not like any of the endings, but we have to face the reality of how morally revolting all of the endings were.

Modifié par Miekkas, 02 juillet 2012 - 02:55 .

[wantedman dan]

Collateral damage and genocide are not mutually exclusive.

[Taboo]

Genocide has to come from a deliberate political agenda. It is planned and executed over a period of time.

They are collateral damage because it is a split second decision.

[carrmatt91]

wantedman dan wrote...

Collateral damage and genocide are not mutually exclusive.

in a large scale galactic war in which every organic life is at stake, should shepard be accountable for the death of a single synthetic race (one that only joins the galaxy at large towards the end of ME3) when the only way to destroy the reapers involved destroying said synthetic race also? me thinks not, it was an unfortunate byproduct that could not have been avoided. ergo - collateral damage over deliberate genocide, the motive wasn't to kill the geth but to kill the reapers.

Modifié par carrmatt91, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:02 .

[RonnyB]

N7Gold wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Master Xanthan wrote...

iAFKinMassEffect3 wrote...

Control is the moral choice in picking an ending.

Eh, the Reaper threat is still present though. Sure the Shepard AI has control for now but eventually the AI could become corrupted and become as stupid as the Star Kid then there will be another reaper war.

There is too many "could's" in this.
In destroy the cycle could start again.
In synthesis a super virus could kill everyone
The Galaxy could explode

Asari, Turians Batarians and all the other races are not stupid, they aren't going to get up and randomly create synthetics like the Catalyst believes. There are strict laws on creating AIs and synthetics by the Citadel Council. The quarians got in trouble for creating the Geth and lost their embassy.

Ha! There were also stric laws with harsh penalties for hiding Prothean technology and look at what the Asari did. The Asari kept the beacon a secret to have an advantage over the other races. The same applies to AI. Anyone that can harness the power of AI will have an advantage and you can bet at some point they'll give into temptation and create AI again.

[Taboo]

The Doctor has committed genocide. One might make a comparison there.

He DID destroy his own race to destroy the Daleks.

[wantedman dan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Genocide has to come from a deliberate political agenda. It is planned and executed over a period of time.

They are collateral damage because it is a split second decision.

No, it doesn't. At least according to the very definition of the term.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Miekkas wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

It's truly remarkable how many people apparently can't tell the difference between collateral damage and genocide.

gen·o·cide

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

The harsh reality is that the Destroy Ending involves Shepard choosing a course of action that he/she knows will lead to the destruction of a now sentient race of beings aka the geth. The act performed rather accurately fulfills the definition of genocide whether we like it or not. We shouldn't jump through mental hurdles of semantics to try and fool ourselves that we committed anything less. We can either accept the reality that Shepard made a choice that resulted in genocide, or fool ourselves into thinking Shepard didn't but reality will speak for itself regardless by the deafening silence of a race that is now extinct. Collateral damage and genocide are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I did not like any of the endings, but we have to face the reality of how morally revolting all of the endings were.

I certainly can't argue with that.

The thing, though, is I roleplay the decision. I don't believe the Catalyst completely, and you have to wonder: some of the things he tells you do sound questionable. Not to mention the original Destroy never actually showed any indication as to whether the geth and EDI were dead. Apparently this was confirmed as early as last week when the EC released... via Jessica's Twitter.

Regardless, I thought having Destroy's effect extended to other synthetics was a rather cheap attempt at evening out the ending choices. Imagine if Destroy had only killed the Reapers... yup, the other options would beg to be chosen. It would be like giving Legion to Cerberus in ME2. I'm unaware of ANYONE who went with that decision.

This is actually part of the reason I find Destroy fitting to Renegade as well (although some may disagree); if you willfully kill the geth on Rannoch, you have nothing to worry about. EDI is entirely expendable. The choice becomes a walk in the park. But Paragons don't quite see it that way, which is the problem - trying to justify it from a Paragon point of view.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:09 .

[wantedman dan]

carrmatt91 wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Collateral damage and genocide are not mutually exclusive.

in a large scale galactic war in which every organic life is at stake, should shepard be accountable for the death of a single synthetic race (one that only joins the galaxy at large towards the end of ME3) when the only way to destroy the reapers involved destroying said synthetic race also? me thinks not, it was an unfortunate byproduct that could not have been avoided. ergo - collateral damage over deliberate genocide, the motive wasn't to kill the geth but to kill the reapers.

Okay. All of the endings are morally reprehensible.

[awwnuts07]

AxStapleton wrote...

Just to dispel the common notion that ALL destroyers hate or don't care about the Geth or EDI, My Shep did. Very much so. He brokered peace between the Geth and Quarians. He encouraged Joker to try a relationship with EDI. He was a true Paragon. He was just incredibly weary of the two other options. My Shep was just talking to the Illusive Man about how high the risks of Control were, "Are you willing to bet Humanity's existence on it?" We've seen what one entity in control of that level of power has done. My Shepard, for all the universe's imperfections, loved diversity. Forcing that level of change, taking away that diversity (even if it was only on the level of Organics and Synthetics) was abhorrent to him, images of the Reapers and the Husks of all the species come to mind. In his mind, it was the Catalyst's solution. The Reaper's solution. This left him with Destroy. He could erase the Reapers from existence, the Catalyst would be no more. Life would be free. Diversity eventually preserved. But at a terrible cost. The Geth and EDI. But he had to take that decision. He would have taken it if it cost any one of the other races instead of the Synthetics, including Humanity. He considered them just as alive. But it didn't make him feel  any better. However, he didn't buy the crap that it was inevitable for  Synthetics to wipe out all other life. His past experiences taught him  this. Synthetics could be rebuilt. But he knew there would be no  bringing EDI or the Geth back. He hopes that they'll be remembered. That when the time comes for new Synthetic intelligences to be built, that  the lessons learned in this war would not be forgotten. That the same  mistakes wouldn't be repeated. There might not be much left. But there is hope.

Not all destroyers are heartless murderers.
 
P.S.Nor am I saying that people who chose anything else are any worse than me. They're all valid options with a high risk/cost. This is purely my reasoning behind me choosing the Destroy option. Its just a case of what cost you are willing to take to do what you percieve must be done.

Whatever, dood. Everyone on these forums knows you don't care about synthetics. Just accept that you and your fellow destroyers are total biggots and are totally in love with genocide...like Hitler. I wouldn't be surprised if you destroyers hate jews and black people too.

Modifié par awwnuts07, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:10 .

[Taboo]

wantedman dan wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Genocide has to come from a deliberate political agenda. It is planned and executed over a period of time.

They are collateral damage because it is a split second decision.

No, it doesn't. At least according to the very definition of the term.

The Genophage is genocide because it is enacted over a period of time. (It even fits the official term as dictated by the United Nations)

The Geth are collateral damage, a blow back. In a split second decision, Sheparde cannot possibly weigh everything.

But that sure as **** doesn't mean I won't take responsibility.

[DPSSOC]

B.Shep wrote...

Genophage was a genocide attempt, but Geth were collateral damage on destroy ending.

No, no it wasn't.  Sorry to go off topic here but the purpose of the genophage was to bring Krogan reproduction into line with the other species.  It was designed to ensure a manageable population growth that would still allow the Krogan to survive and grow as a species without running into the problems that led to the Krogan Rebellions.  That the Krogan maintain a culture with a high mortality rate is their doing, not the genophage's.  If Wrex had gained traction earlier (back when his dad betrayed him) the Krogan would probably be doing rather well at this point.

[Taboo]

awwnuts07 wrote...


Whatever, dood. Everyone on these forums knows you don't care about synthetics. Just accept that you and your fellow destroyers are total biggots and are totally in love with genocide...like Hitler. I wouldn't be surprised if you hate jews and black people too.

Suddenly...Godwin.

[wantedman dan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard cannot possibly weigh everything.

Sorry for his luck. Still committed an atrocity.

[Taboo]

wantedman dan wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard cannot possibly weigh everything.

Sorry for his luck. Still committed an atrocity.

And I plan on taking responsibility for it. I can never justify it.

[Pacifien]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...
Regardless, I thought having Destroy's effect extended to other synthetics was a rather cheap attempt at evening out the ending choices. Imagine if Destroy had only killed the Reapers... yup, the other options would beg to be chosen. It would be like giving Legion to Cerberus in ME2. I'm unaware of ANYONE who went with that decision.

Oh, I could have totally thought of a way that would have made Destroy the hardest choice to make. It's the only option of the three where the Reapers are not available to rebuild the Mass Relays.

But sending the Galaxy into a Dark Age was deemed absolutely unacceptable by the community, and BioWare made a point to address it directly so as there would be no ambiguity to the fact that it will not happen, even with the Destroy option.

[wantedman dan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

And I plan on taking responsibility for it. I can never justify it.

At least you're fair about it.

[Caenis]

Well someone brought it to my attention that Synthesis is also a type of Genocide, as you're destroying the soul of humanity/humans in exchange for merging Synthetics and Organics, they are fundamentally changed and no longer humans. We can call the word Genocide, Extinction, Evolution, Eugenics...anything we want. The only difference is when we hear Genocide we think of Death, Holocaust, etc.. We don't think of 'transformation' example you turn from a Wolf into a Dog into a Hydra, instantly bypassing all the time inbetween. So on one hand it is a form of Extinction, but on the other hand it's not the kind where people 'die', its like a rapid mutation, the effects of a nuclear bomb where no one dies and everyone is happy and even the Reapers who have been enslaved to the Catalyst are freed.

Destroy is the same way, except in this case there is DEATH of a race that has been repeatedly shown to be sentient, emerging into something that very much resembles life. Legion repeatedly stating not wanting to die, that they did not wish extinction, and would rather give up their free will than be terminated. They were concerned about their survival. Edi towards the end expressed fear and doubt, and self-preservation. We can make any justification we want, so long as we admit that it was a form of Extinction. It doesn't make it the wrong decision but it also doesn't change the facts. So long as we don't try to sugar coat actions using linguistics...

In any case...every CHOICE you pick comes with a STEEP Price, it all depends on which price you're willing to live with according to your values and the priority to which you place them. At the end of the day each decision removes the Threat and you succeed either way...hell even Refusal has a happy ending for the future generations.

Modifié par Caenis, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:19 .