80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BansheeOwnage]

Gwyphon wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
Fun fact: they reuse warning labels dozens of times through the game. That "bolt to the head" warning sign right next to Ventbrat? It's unique. It's never reused. I did an entire playthrough once literally for the sole purpose of scouring every inch of the game trying to find that warning sign used again.

Think it's used in the Vancouver multiplayer map at the bottom of that really long ladder placed on some air conditioners, though the MP team is completely different. That warning sign is very distinct though. Warning, only your head will be electricuted? Seems odd if you take it as a literal warning sign.

I think it's actually a reference to the ventboy. It is beside a vent, in Vancouver after all. Plus, it is only MP.

[Dwailing]

You know, I've officially figured out my thoughts on the endings.  I'll be okay if they confirm that IT is only a valid interpretation rather than what they intended.  I'll be VERY okay if they confirm that IT was their intention and they say that they'll do more with it.  I will NOT be okay if they say that IT was their intention, but they're not going to do anything with it.  In the case of the first, IT will remain headcanon, and that's the end of it.  If it's the second, we'll see what Shepard proceeds to do.  If it's the third, it's actually worse than the original endings because if IT is canon, but they don't show us what happens next, then the Reapers are still out there, and we don't know what happened to Shepard.  At least in the originals we knew that the Reapers were defeated.

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

 That's why it's so fun (and infuriating) to debate with this topic. The only hard part is finding points for the negative. All I have really is that killing is immoral thus the resolution is immoral. (Plus a bunch of stuff for rebuttals... )

If someone would like to help by faux debate the topic for practice in PM's it would be appreciated!!! :happy:

This is the argument for the negative I've heard:
The people that will die if you don't shoot the single person are not dying because of you. By doing nothing to save them, you are not infringing upon their freedom to act or their natural rights. By shooting the single person, you are removing his freedom to act and are infringing upon his right to live.

Doing nothing is an action. By choosing not to do anything, you chose to do something. If you are too weak to shoot the one person to save the many people, you are much, much worse.
 
And you are responsible for their deaths.

Not your fault; your responsibility. They die because of you.

[BansheeOwnage]

Dwailing wrote...

You know, I've officially figured out my thoughts on the endings.  I'll be okay if they confirm that IT is only a valid interpretation rather than what they intended.  I'll be VERY okay if they confirm that IT was their intention and they say that they'll do more with it.  I will NOT be okay if they say that IT was their intention, but they're not going to do anything with it.  In the case of the first, IT will remain headcanon, and that's the end of it.  If it's the second, we'll see what Shepard proceeds to do.  If it's the third, it's actually worse than the original endings because if IT is canon, but they don't show us what happens next, then the Reapers are still out there, and we don't know what happened to Shepard.  At least in the originals we knew that the Reapers were defeated.

That is the worst option. But it is also the most unlikely IMO.

[BleedingUranium]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Prothean beacons have green lights as well.

Pretty much all prothean tech is green. See post above.

Yep. Prothean stuff is angular, smooth, reflective, black, and has green lights. Here's a good example, look at the floor. Something I realised is this means the Collector Black Arks and the Collector Base were once Prothean, and not just made by the Collectors. Now they're all covered in Collector stuff, that's why the Black Arks look like synthesis on the outside.

Three guesses what this would've been next cycle.

[TJBartlemus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

 That's why it's so fun (and infuriating) to debate with this topic. The only hard part is finding points for the negative. All I have really is that killing is immoral thus the resolution is immoral. (Plus a bunch of stuff for rebuttals... )

If someone would like to help by faux debate the topic for practice in PM's it would be appreciated!!! :happy:

This is the argument for the negative I've heard:
The people that will die if you don't shoot the single person are not dying because of you. By doing nothing to save them, you are not infringing upon their freedom to act or their natural rights. By shooting the single person, you are removing his freedom to act and are infringing upon his right to live.

Doing nothing is an action. By choosing not to do anything, you chose to do something. If you are too weak to shoot the one person to save the many people, you are much, much worse.
 
And you are responsible for their deaths.

Not your fault; your responsibility. They die because of you.

So you admit that you have premeditated choice. Well by definition:

Murder = unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Murder in every institution of law which is governed by morals states that murder is immoral and illegal. 

[Dwailing]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

You know, I've officially figured out my thoughts on the endings.  I'll be okay if they confirm that IT is only a valid interpretation rather than what they intended.  I'll be VERY okay if they confirm that IT was their intention and they say that they'll do more with it.  I will NOT be okay if they say that IT was their intention, but they're not going to do anything with it.  In the case of the first, IT will remain headcanon, and that's the end of it.  If it's the second, we'll see what Shepard proceeds to do.  If it's the third, it's actually worse than the original endings because if IT is canon, but they don't show us what happens next, then the Reapers are still out there, and we don't know what happened to Shepard.  At least in the originals we knew that the Reapers were defeated.

That is the worst option. But it is also the most unlikely IMO.

Assuming you're referring to the third possibility (Which I'm fairly certain you are), I agree.  I'm pretty certain that it will be one of the first two.  BioWare and EA aren't stupid.  They know that the third would hurt their reputations even WORSE than the original endings.  The only thing that bothers me at this point is that they haven't said which of the first two is correct, but I actually think that might be a hint that IT is what they intended and that they're going to do something with it because otherwise, there would be no reason to keep us in the dark.

[Dwailing]

BleedingUranium wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Uh...

Doing Javik's recruitment mission. When Shepard activates the Prothean message his eyes turn green. Like in Overlord and Synthesis.

...yeah.

Prothean beam weapon also shoots green beams and I also believe Javiks biotics are green as well.

Prothean beacons have green lights as well.

Pretty much all prothean tech is green. See post above.

Yep. Prothean stuff is angular, smooth, reflective, black, and has green lights. Here's a good example, look at the floor. Something I realised is this means the Collector Black Arks and the Collector Base were once Prothean, and not just made by the Collectors. Now they're all covered in Collector stuff, that's why the Black Arks look like synthesis on the outside.

Three guesses what this would've been next cycle.

Oh, wait, let me guess!  Uh, the Human Husk base?  You know, if we were changed into something like the Collectors.

Also, when you talk about Collector Black Arks, are you referring to their ships?  I assume so, but I just want to make sure.

Modifié par Dwailing, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:55 .

[PsiMatrix]

So; my playthrough is now taking me through ME2. And Joker said something that made me wonder: "Cerberus is about a three-headed dog, the guardian of hell and yet there's only one guy running it". Since TIM is indoctrinated and 'Cerberus is an idea'; possibly related to the three choices we make?

Another moment to Shepard being different: recruiting the Warlord. Just encountered the tank-bred Krogan on and he senses Shepard isn't from this world but feels compelled to speak to him. Compelled. A very odd choice of words for a 7 day old cloned Krogan.

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...


Three guesses what this would've been next cycle.

It is even orbiting a (dead) star!

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 31 octobre 2012 - 01:57 .

[TSA_383]

So, what's the bet that Bioware announce something tomorrow (or today, timezones eh?) based on the fact that "hey it's halloween so why not?"

[BansheeOwnage]

TSA_383 wrote...

So, what's the bet that Bioware announce something tomorrow (or today, timezones eh?) based on the fact that "hey it's halloween so why not?"

I hope it's some creepy hazard maps! And a free Hallowe'en pack!

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 31 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[Andromidius]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Not your fault; your responsibility. They die because of you.

Technically speaking, the person creating that situation is responsible.  And it would be a very twisted and sadistic person at that.

[BansheeOwnage]

Andromidius wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Not your fault; your responsibility. They die because of you.

Technically speaking, the person creating that situation is responsible.  And it would be a very twisted and sadistic person at that.

It can be the responsibility of multiple people. It may even be that no one was directly responsible for the initial situation - or at least at fault.

[BleedingUranium]

TJBartlemus wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

And then proceed to get a 0 % for effort.  But 100% for creativity!!!  

It's a problem with the question, not the answer.

Most ethical questions you hear in classes such as the train problem are designed for highlighting the differences between deontological and utilitarian ethics, both of which try to formulate a group of immutable and universal ethical principles.

 That's why it's so fun (and infuriating) to debate with this topic. The only hard part is finding points for the negative. All I have really is that killing is immoral thus the resolution is immoral. (Plus a bunch of stuff for rebuttals... )

If someone would like to help by faux debate the topic for practice in PM's it would be appreciated!!! :happy:

This is the argument for the negative I've heard:
The people that will die if you don't shoot the single person are not dying because of you. By doing nothing to save them, you are not infringing upon their freedom to act or their natural rights. By shooting the single person, you are removing his freedom to act and are infringing upon his right to live.

Doing nothing is an action. By choosing not to do anything, you chose to do something. If you are too weak to shoot the one person to save the many people, you are much, much worse.
 
And you are responsible for their deaths.

Not your fault; your responsibility. They die because of you.

So you admit that you have premeditated choice. Well by definition:

Murder = unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Murder in every institution of law which is governed by morals states that murder is immoral and illegal. 

But law =/= morality.

To me, murder doesn't exist, it's not a thing. There's justified and unjustified killing, but we don't need a fancy name for one of them. And whether something is justified depends on your personal morality system.

If I had played Bring Down The Sky spoiler-free, I'd have gone after Balak for sure, and let the hostages die. The only reason I let him go is because I knew the consequences both then and in ME3, where having let him go is a good thing. Same with saving the Council. Spoiler-free, I would have let them die and saved our ships for Sovereign.

I find myself agreeing with Garrus a lot. A good example is in ME1, when he's talking about Dr. Saleon escaping the Citadel, and they refused to fire on the ship, because they were worried about debris causing casualties. I agree with Garrus, total bull; they should have done it anyway.

I'm pretty much as Paragade as you can get. Help all the random people, be really nice to friends, solve problems and such, but I will never hesitate to do what is necessary. When dealing with corrupt mercs or criminals, it's always shoot first, never ask questions. Combine Kaidan, with Garrus's methods of problem solving and you have me.

[BleedingUranium]

Dwailing wrote...

Oh, wait, let me guess!  Uh, the Human Husk base?  You know, if we were changed into something like the Collectors.

Also, when you talk about Collector Black Arks, are you referring to their ships?  I assume so, but I just want to make sure.

Yep. They were finally given a name in ME3.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 31 octobre 2012 - 02:20 .

[Andromidius]

Huh. Little side note. On Menae there's two sets (that I've seen) of dead Turians under sheets. Three Turians in each group, with '3' printed on each sheet.

Nice little easter egg, in a strange sort of way.

[CmdrShep80]

Well...good thing BioWare didn't lock the thread on the last page. Though that would have been an interesting Halloween event. I noticed the threads where some sneaky folks made a guest cameo and taunted the folks

Wonder if we'll see one of them here today or tomorrow

[BansheeOwnage]

starlitegirlx wrote...

NO, they die because of the person who took the action to kill them. That you hesitated does not make you a killer.  Fact is that a lot of people would hesitate in such a position if they were not trained to kill. In such a moment, what average person could fully process the situation and kill that person? This sort of logic treads dangerously close to blaming the victim. That person you are claiming is responsible is in a situation that few people are prepared to deal with and even fewer are able to act. That is why in a case where someone does take action that saves the many, they are called a hero. Because the majority of people would not be able to do it.

Tread cautiously here. There are many things about the human psyche that you have not taken into consideration.

Broad sweeping generalizations are always flawed. And to blame a person for deaths when they were not the killer is utterly absurd. Sorry, but it truly is. Even trained soldiers and police have been known to freeze in certain situations where they have been trained to 'take down the target'. It's called HUMAN NATURE. Killing someone is not an easy thing to do. Even when you have been trained for it. 

I have to say that such a line of thinking is disturbing to say the least.

I didn't say it would be easy, I said it would be necessary. Hence the important difference between it being someone's fault and someone's responsibility.
I agree with Ducard's philosophy, not his actions.

Edit: We should stary too far off topic, but this directly relates to destroy vs refuse.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 31 octobre 2012 - 02:50 .

[CmdrShep80]

By the way I do want to say one hugely important thing about that PTSD topic ( I know I know we got off of it but I still think it's important to remember).

1)  Shepard is not a doctor

2) The majority of us are not doctors who can diagnose PTSD

3)  Shepard should not self diagnose his symtpoms

4)  We shouldn't diagnose symptoms of PTSD in Shepard because we are Shepard and that amounts to self diagnosis

5)  The best option is to check ourselves into the Huerta Memorial Hosptial Mental Health Ward and speak to a doctor there who can tell us from a non-biased and non-shepard viewpoint if we are or are not.  Remember, we can clearly see the two cases because we're not them.  We can't clearly see the case in ourselves because we will be self diagnosing and that can lead to a mis-understanding of our symptoms

[Humakt83]

Dwailing wrote...

You know, I've officially figured out my thoughts on the endings.  I'll be okay if they confirm that IT is only a valid interpretation rather than what they intended.  I'll be VERY okay if they confirm that IT was their intention and they say that they'll do more with it.  I will NOT be okay if they say that IT was their intention, but they're not going to do anything with it.  In the case of the first, IT will remain headcanon, and that's the end of it.  If it's the second, we'll see what Shepard proceeds to do.  If it's the third, it's actually worse than the original endings because if IT is canon, but they don't show us what happens next, then the Reapers are still out there, and we don't know what happened to Shepard.

I don't really care what they say or what is Bioware's opinion. What matters is the games and the Mass Effect universe. Show not tell.

Dwailing wrote...
At least in the originals we knew that the Reapers were defeated.

Hardly.

Modifié par Humakt83, 31 octobre 2012 - 03:31 .

[Humakt83]

Shepard: "Morinth claimed her condition was the future of the Asari race.
Samara: "Morinth would claim anything that would serve her cause."
Samara: "Ardat-Yakshi are sterile, Shepard. That wouldn't be a particularly viable future for my people."

[ZerebusPrime]

So... scuttlebutt says to watch Multiplayer tomorrow for a Halloween update. Cross your fingers, folks. I'm beginning to suspect, however, that the Vancouver easter eggs may have nothing to do with IT and everything to do with MP events.