236 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

1-Fighting the reapers is self-defense

So now your point of view is "war crime is ok in self defense"? That is interesting.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
2-Soldiers dying and genocide are different.

The principle remains the same - conscious sacrifice of human lives to save more human lives - no difference

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
3-anything can be labeled as a sacrifice, but it's genocide, thank you for admitting it.

I didn't admit it, you misunderstood me. What I've said: no matter if we consider destruction of Geth genocide or not, it still is a sacrifice at the same time.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...4-It is systematic, it was a system that killed all synthetics, whether designed by you or not you decided to activate it.

a : methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar>
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic efforts>

And again, destruction of Geth wasn't systematic, so it wasn't genocide. Geth weren't targeted, they were just caught in collateral damage.

Modifié par Pitznik, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:19 .

[Pacifien]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
Every decision but refusal can be labeled as a war crime. And your implying by your writing as if refusal is wrong, if you got something to say, say it, no offense.

To clarify, think of all the people who say Destroy is a perfectly viable option because the Geth are only machines. While Shepard may personally view the Geth as sentient AI deserving of the same rights as an organic, there are people in the war who view otherwise. Shepard has just failed to end the war for them because Shepard had a different moral viewpoint. You can say that Shepard's viewpoint is right, but that's small comfort when a war drags on and friends die around you.

I know the writers tried to show Shepard just how bad things could get through sharing Javik's point of view of the war, because through Javik, there probably is no concept of a war crime when it comes to defeating the Reapers. But to say that all of Javik's squadmates were indoctrinated and turned on him isn't the same as having that actually happen to Shepard himself. But the game was brutal enough as it was, probably.

I just mention that because... I don't know. Probably because I view one thinking refusal is somehow conscience free because it's war crime free as naive? There are brutal emotions evolved with each decision, all four of them.

[Pacifien]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
I think she meant you get to see your allies go down fighting, maybe some survive via stasis pod, but it shouldn't be, screen fades black.

Part of that is because they were limited to the size of the download to, I think, 2 gigs for the XBox 360, and I believe they hit that limit. They really couldn't make the cinematic any larger without sacrificing elsewhere. That meant either cutting back on the diversity or cutting back on the three decisions that are, I'd say, main endings. Because again, the refusal ending probably doesn't fit thematically with what they wanted because the story is about defeating the Reapers in *this* cycle, not the next one. Hence the need to keep it simple.

[Grogimus]

To the OP and those agreeing with him:

While I respect your interpretation, my Shephard would choose destroy every time. In fact, this is one reason why I really like Mass Effect 3. There are many interpretations. There are so many variables in human ways of thinking. The game is set up to adhere to most interpretations. Sadly not all interpretations....but that is inevitable.

Edit:  I should point out that I'm refering to the Extended Cut.

Modifié par Grogimus, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:29 .

[SadisticStick]

Dharvy wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

I'm not acting obtuse...
It's a legitimate point...

One that you fail to acknowledge...

It's still genocide, because you were told you were, you choose not to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action, you killed the Geth and commited genocide in the process.

Were you not told that refusing would effectively kill everybody fighting for survival? Did you choose to believe in it, and do it anyway, and by doing that set action/inaction, you killed or let be killed the galaxy? Yes everyone is not fighting reapers just for some notion of freedom, they're fighting for there survival. There fighting to survive and their right to live. If you feel everyone signed on to die fighting the reapers then why are you trying to make it seem wrong to let the geth die fighting the reapers but it's alright to let the whole galaxy die fighting the reapers is somehow not in the same category?

[TheGreatDayne]

It would have been cool if it was longer though... At least show me the grief in everyone's face as they fought! (Or their joy, knowing they fought for a good cause, or something...) It would have been a beautiful, dramatic end!

That is the only thing I don't like about refuse... It was too short... But, I like all the endings, in their own way...

But, hey, at least refuse ending isn't the most hated.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

1-Fighting the reapers is self-defense

So now your point of view is "war crime is ok in self defense"? That is interesting.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
2-Soldiers dying and genocide are different.

The principle remains the same - conscious sacrifice of human lives to save more human lives - no difference

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
3-anything can be labeled as a sacrifice, but it's genocide, thank you for admitting it.

I didn't admit it, you misunderstood me. What I've said: no matter if we consider destruction of Geth genocide or not, it still is a sacrifice at the same time.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...4-It is systematic, it was a system that killed all synthetics, whether designed by you or not you decided to activate it.

a : methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar>
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic efforts>

And again, destruction of Geth wasn't systematic, so it wasn't genocide. Geth weren't targeted, they were just caught in collateral damage.

1-Defending yourself is not considered a war crime, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
2-It's genocide, because you had other options, but choose to pick that one. Whether sacrifice or not, it's a war crime and should never been done to win a war, never the less should it be justify by calling it a sacrifice.
3-Your in a shy way admitting its genocide, but trying to justify by saying is a sacrifice at the same time, sad really.
4-A machine that targets built to only to target and kill synthetics, looks "methodical in procedure or plan" to me.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:36 .

[SeaJayX]

So be it!

[2Shepards]

For you guys and gals

Modifié par 2Shepards, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:56 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

2Shepards wrote...

For you guys and gals

Yessssss

[Captain Kibosh]

Jymm wrote...

After the EC came out I originally picked refuse for my renegade Shepard. Then after watching it I thought, no, this is a paragon ending decision. A fanatical, defiant, standing by your principles to the bitter end kind of ending. In another thread I compared it to the end of Braveheart, and I still think that's how I feel about it. Its clearly not for everyone, and there is reason to believe BW intended it as a snub, but I still like it.

I also agree that Shepard has done the impossible at least a half-dozen times so far and with maxed out war assets he / she might plausibly believe that its possible again. So without meta-gaming I think Shep might believe that refuse is an option.

Interesting you use the word "fanatical."  Looking at some of the footage of Shepard's speech in the refusal option, I noticed the not insignifcant camera choice of panning directly into Shepard's face as s/he defiantly says, "And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everyhing I could to stop you.  And I'll die free."

The close-ups feature Shepard with the feverish look of a zealot at her/his last stand.  I think this is the only time in the entirety of the Mass Effect franchise that you get Shepard looking directly into the camera.  Something "meta" is definitely going on here in this near breaking the fourth wall.  Is BioWare trying to put up a "mirror" to reflect our ostensible "fanaticism?"  Possible.

It's seems rather passive-aggressive to me, but then again, the scene does play out as a triumph of personal conviction in terms of tone, especially underscored by the poignant melody of the piano.  A triumph of personal conviction...until the Reapers kill everything in the galaxy, that is....  <_<

Maybe its BW's way of saying, "Okay, I can see your point, but I still like my way better."

[Pitznik]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

1-Fighting the reapers is self-defense

So now your point of view is "war crime is ok in self defense"? That is interesting.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
2-Soldiers dying and genocide are different.

The principle remains the same - conscious sacrifice of human lives to save more human lives - no difference

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...
3-anything can be labeled as a sacrifice, but it's genocide, thank you for admitting it.

I didn't admit it, you misunderstood me. What I've said: no matter if we consider destruction of Geth genocide or not, it still is a sacrifice at the same time.

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...4-It is systematic, it was a system that killed all synthetics, whether designed by you or not you decided to activate it.

a : methodical in procedure or plan <a systematic approach> <a systematic scholar>
b : marked by thoroughness and regularity <systematic efforts>

And again, destruction of Geth wasn't systematic, so it wasn't genocide. Geth weren't targeted, they were just caught in collateral damage.

1-Defending yourself is not considered a war crime, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
2-It's genocide, because you had other options, but choose to pick that one. Whether sacrifice or not, it's a war crime and should never been done to win a war, never the less should it be justify by calling it a sacrifice.
3-Your in a shy way admitting its genocide, but trying to justify by saying is a sacrifice at the same time, sad really.
4-A machine that targets built to only to target and kill synthetics, looks "methodical in procedure or plan" to me.

1. Destroying the Reapers is a genocide. You are willing to destroy them, yet you are dismissing Destroy "because it is genocide", my question is then: why suddenly genocide against Reapers is ok? and you say it is self defense. So my conclusion is "Khajiit Jzargo is ok with genocide as long it's in self defense". Where I made a mistake then?
2. We're directly comparing refusal to destroy. Forget about other options. Also, I do not try to justify it by calling it sacrifice - I call it sacrifice because it is a sacrifice. As for justification, saving the galaxy is enough for me.
3. Don't be childish. I said that it is a sacrifice no matter if you consider it a genocide or not, I didn't admit it was genocide because it was not. Genocide as defined by UN requires "intent to destroy".
4. Don't look at the machine, since we're not talking about it. It is destruction of Geth that has to be systematic, not the machine. The destruction of teh Geth isn't methodical in procedure or plan - it is unplanned. Collateral damage.

You say that refusal is the only ending that can't be considered war crime. But refusal ending is actually the worst ending possible. Person with responsibility to use the device he insisted everyone will support and everyone will put everything on, person who gave everyone else hope and strength to fight out of sudden decides to do nothing instead, accepting inevitable destruction of all advanced life in the galaxy. By your definition it is genocide (or rather galaxicide) by negligence

Modifié par Pitznik, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:22 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

2Shepards wrote...

For you guys and gals

Sweet, thank you.

[Galbrant]

2Shepards wrote...

For you guys and gals

Awesome, thanks indeed.

[HooblaDGN]

Indeed, while I can't believe that it was meant as anything besides an insult to players based on its comparative shortness alone, it's at least something that I can take as a symbol of our own refusal of the atrocious endings that we were given, as you did. I refused, and I hoped that the casualties we inflicted and the knowledge we gathered would be enough for the next cycle to defeat the Reapers without sacrificing large chunks of their collective soul. It's the best I can get out of this fiasco, and apparently the best I'm ever going to get if their insistence that this was it for the endings holds firm. So I'll take it as a symbol of collective fan refusal, aye.

[stysiaq]

Refusal ending is worthless without ability to somehow win the battle of Earth.

I wanted to "Take Earth Back". I did not.

We all want to see War Assets in action. No use for it if I can't use these assets to win.

[Reorte]

I see that some people are still defending getting everyone killed to avoid having to make a hard decision.

[majormajormmajor]

I actually quite like the thematic ramifications of Refusal. But the fact that its basically some folks at Bioware dangling their hairy balls on everyone's tongue as punishment for questioning their artistic integrity in the first place destroys any enjoyment I might have derived from it.

Modifié par majormajormmajor, 08 juillet 2012 - 11:07 .

[Reorte]

majormajormmajor wrote...

I actually quite like the thematic ramifications of Refusal. But the fact that its basically some folks at Bioware dangling their hairy balls on everyone's tongue as punishment for questioning their artistic integrity in the first place destroys any enjoyment I might have derived from it.

I put it down to an unsurprising misunderstanding. People said they wanted to tell the Catalyst where to go, and that there should've been a "Reapers win" scenario. The problem is that people wanted to point out to the Catalyst how idiotic his logic is, not simply to say "F off", and that "Reapers win" should've been what you got with a very low EMS, so your failure is down to having messed up throughout the game.

[PoisonMushroom]

Pitznik wrote...

You say that refusal is the only ending that can't be considered war crime. But refusal ending is actually the worst ending possible. Person with responsibility to use the device he insisted everyone will support and everyone will put everything on, person who gave everyone else hope and strength to fight out of sudden decides to do nothing instead, accepting inevitable destruction of all advanced life in the galaxy. By your definition it is genocide (or rather galaxicide) by negligence

It might be the worst ending. But it's also the only one where you don't commit a war crime. That's Bioware's doing and is part of the reason I dislike the endings and why I like the option to refuse them.

It's perfect. Shepard's getting killed by Bioware for withholding values that Mass Effect taught/showed.

[PoisonMushroom]

Reorte wrote...

I see that some people are still defending getting everyone killed to avoid having to make a hard decision.

Bioware decided it killed people in the game. Not me. 

I can't choose any of the original three endings without watching everything unfold with a bitter taste in my mouth. There's no catharsis for me there. My crew members and the galaxy might be alive, but they're alive in some freakshow warped version of Mass Effect where it's okay to make friends with the Reapers, characters can get introduced in the final 5 minutes and none of my choices matter. Some hideous Hudson and Walters narrative monstrosity. Living in this version of Mass Effect is a fate much worse than death.

[Reorte]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

It might be the worst ending. But it's also the only one where you don't commit a war crime. That's Bioware's doing and is part of the reason I dislike the endings and why I like the option to refuse them.

Would having to abandon entire worlds to the Reapers be a war crime? It would be an inevitable necesssity even if they could eventually be beaten without the Unimaginative Space Microphone DeM.

Incidentally I can see some argument for chosing Refuse over Synthesis.

Modifié par Reorte, 08 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[PoisonMushroom]

Reorte wrote...

PoisonMushroom wrote...

It might be the worst ending. But it's also the only one where you don't commit a war crime. That's Bioware's doing and is part of the reason I dislike the endings and why I like the option to refuse them.

Would having to abandon entire worlds to the Reapers be a war crime? It would be an inevitable necesssity even if they could eventually be beaten without the Unimaginative Space Microphone DeM.

Incidentally I can see some argument for chosing Refuse over Synthesis.

It's much easier to understand the justification for choosing refuse if you think of it as being the end to a story rather than being real life. If I was in that situation in real life, I would choose destroy every time but this is a story after all.

Is Shepard prepared to sacrifice everything he's been fighting in order to survive? I think it makes a much a better ending if the answer is no. This cycle is preserved on their own terms through Liara's capsules and in doing so their part leads to eventual destruction of the Reaper. This is the most fitting end to Mass Effect in my eyes.

I'd disagree that the price tag that goes along with is a bad thing. If it was real life then of course it would be but as an end to the story it adds serious consequences and meaning to the choice. I would have liked it if it was a bit longer, but even the brevity of it adds something when you start thinking of it on the Bioware-fan level. Whilst for Shepard choosing refuse, the punishment is death, for the player the punishment is brevity, less closure and the sense of failure.

Intentional or not they've managed to create an ending where the player and Shepard are upholding the values of the series to Bioware and the Reapers respectively. The player/Shepard relationship is the closest it's ever been in the entire series at this point. It's absolutely perfect and it works.

So you can talk about digital lives being lost but that's not really the point of the choice at all.

[Reorte]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

It's much easier to understand the justification for choosing refuse if you think of it as being the end to a story rather than being real life. If I was in that situation in real life, I would choose destroy every time but this is a story after all.

That point says enough for me - if you're just looking for a story resolution I'm fine with that (I disagree with it still but now it is relegated to ultimately meaningless opinion). My problem with Refuse supporters is that I get the impression that some of them think it's what you should choose if it was real.

[PoisonMushroom]

Reorte wrote...

PoisonMushroom wrote...

It's much easier to understand the justification for choosing refuse if you think of it as being the end to a story rather than being real life. If I was in that situation in real life, I would choose destroy every time but this is a story after all.

That point says enough for me - if you're just looking for a story resolution I'm fine with that (I disagree with it still but now it is relegated to ultimately meaningless opinion). My problem with Refuse supporters is that I get the impression that some of them think it's what you should choose if it was real.

....how exactly is it relegated to meaningless opinion? It's a perfectly reasonable way to make the choice.