6432 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?

And please, point me to the rotting wound of killer robots that exist in Shepard's world-you know the ones that rebeled against their creators and caused overwhelming conflict and chaos.  Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them.

1."In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?"
Who said it would? That ws never stated to happen nor my point? Why ask?

2." Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them."
Do you even know what rebel means.
 Ifthe creators rebel ageinst the geth, that would mean the gath were in charge. They were not. 
Rebel
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/rebel 
1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.

The quarians were the authority and made a rulin gto kill the geth...The geth fought back...That means the geth rebeled.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:30 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

Well, Dreman, I had a lot of fun debating with you and stuff, but I think I'm going to call it a night. I'm awfully tired, but I had fun with you! Maybe I'll be on tommorow and we can catch up together, discuss ME over a cup of tea, but I have a lot of school reading to do so I'm not sure until then. In the mean time, make sure you support my threads, I rarely see you comment on them for some reason Whatever happened to having fun?

Anyway, see you soon, friend!

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:29 .

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

That only to you. The concept of moral conflit is your morality vs the reality of the sitsuation, aka morality vs goals.
The thing is morality is realitive. You may not think the things you need toget to you goal conflict with your morality..That means less moral conflict.
If you don't feel that the geth choice and collector base choice  had alot of moral conflict , that does not mean other did not. Many people did have  a lot of moralconflict over those choices.

pls show me where you saw many people having moral conflicts about those choices, because destroying or rewriting the Geth Heretics are basically doing the samething and the Collector Base choices falls other the player being Pro-Cerberus or Anti-Cerberus thats also not a hard moral conflict choice

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

If you are given a gun and told if you shoot 5 people that 10 other people will be saved, the 5 you shoot are not collateral damage.  If you decide to shoot them, you have committed murder, no matter what the circumstances.  You could have decided not to shoot.

This has nothing to do with using the Crucible. The only way to male a gun metaphor work would be to make it a full-auto machine gun. You can kill the murderers before they kill again, but you'll hit some bystanders. 

Not the same thing.  Destroy targets all synthetics.  You choose to shoot it so you know what it will kill, it's not because the reapers are exploding next to the geth that the geth die.  They die because they are targeted.  He says this.  He's telling you it will.  Your analogy only works if you can't be sure who it will kill-who might accidentally get caught in the crossfire.  If it was a magic machine gun and you were told that the people you mean to kill will die and so will every single innocent person in the crowd, you know it is targeting them.  That's not collateral damage.  Collateral is unintended.  If you point a gun and shoot it and you are told it will kill x people, at the moment you pull the trigger you intended to kill x people, no matter how unhappy you are that it happened.

[AlanC9]

plfranke wrote...

AlanC9 wrote..

An awful lot of fans liked that BS. 

Don't ask me why.

It is beyond your comprehension, is a lot better than something that is contradicted in the game.

I would have loathed a no- comprehension ending. But YMMV.

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
This is a science fiction story set in the future, it is not like the real world, the real world is much more complex than jumping into a beam to solve problems, there are repurcussions and ramifications, political and bureauratical red tapes

Yep. Repercussions and ramifications. Your new super-weapon doesn't' only kill Reapers, for instance.

Hmmm, I thought the Crucible was designed to kill off all AIs, hence inevitability of organic/synthetic conflicts

[plfranke]

AlanC9 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

AlanC9 wrote..

An awful lot of fans liked that BS. 

Don't ask me why.

It is beyond your comprehension, is a lot better than something that is contradicted in the game.

I would have loathed a no- comprehension ending. But YMMV.

I wouldn't have liked it much either, but to me, it would have been better than what we got. "Ignore those Geth and Quarians working together out there, synthetics and organics will always be in conflict!"

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Not the same thing.  Destroy targets all synthetics.  You choose to shoot it so you know what it will kill, it's not because the reapers are exploding next to the geth that the geth die.  They die because they are targeted.  He says this.  He's telling you it will.  Your analogy only works if you can't be sure who it will kill-who might accidentally get caught in the crossfire.  If it was a magic machine gun and you were told that the people you mean to kill will die and so will every single innocent person in the crowd, you know it is targeting them.  That's not collateral damage.  Collateral is unintended.  If you point a gun and shoot it and you are told it will kill x people, at the moment you pull the trigger you intended to kill x people, no matter how unhappy you are that it happened.

You're right. My bad for trying to salvage your gun metaphor. It has to be something like a bomb

[3DandBeyond]

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?

And please, point me to the rotting wound of killer robots that exist in Shepard's world-you know the ones that rebeled against their creators and caused overwhelming conflict and chaos.  Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them.

1."In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?"
Who said it would? That ws never stated to happen nor my point? Why ask?

2." Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them."
Do you even know what rebel means.
 Ifthe creators rebel ageinst the geth, that would mean the gath were in charge. They were not. 
Rebel
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/rebel 
1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.

The quarians were the authority and made a rulin gto kill the geth...The geth fought back...That means the geth rebeled.

Silliest thing ever-the geth fought to save their lives and that's rebelling.  So, you see the geth as killer robots even though they're willing to fight to help.

You also see killer robots as returning in destroy--if you believe that then you must see they can return in all choices, so all choices are temporary.

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Not the same thing.  Destroy targets all synthetics.  You choose to shoot it so you know what it will kill, it's not because the reapers are exploding next to the geth that the geth die.  They die because they are targeted.  He says this.  He's telling you it will.  Your analogy only works if you can't be sure who it will kill-who might accidentally get caught in the crossfire.  If it was a magic machine gun and you were told that the people you mean to kill will die and so will every single innocent person in the crowd, you know it is targeting them.  That's not collateral damage.  Collateral is unintended.  If you point a gun and shoot it and you are told it will kill x people, at the moment you pull the trigger you intended to kill x people, no matter how unhappy you are that it happened.

You're right. My bad for trying to salvage your gun metaphor. It has to be something like a bomb

You can't twist it to make it work.  Once you know synthetics will die if you choose destroy, you have intentionally killed them.

[plfranke]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
This is a science fiction story set in the future, it is not like the real world, the real world is much more complex than jumping into a beam to solve problems, there are repurcussions and ramifications, political and bureauratical red tapes

Yep. Repercussions and ramifications. Your new super-weapon doesn't' only kill Reapers, for instance.

Hmmm, I thought the Crucible was designed to kill off all AIs, hence inevitability of organic/synthetic conflicts

his point is that while there are negative consequences to destroy, the game is just vague enough in the right places on synthesis, so that one could argue there are no negative consequences at all. This doesn't fit by the "real world sucks yadi yadi yada" as the destroy ending does.

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That only to you. The concept of moral conflit is your morality vs the reality of the sitsuation, aka morality vs goals.
The thing is morality is realitive. You may not think the things you need toget to you goal conflict with your morality..That means less moral conflict.
If you don't feel that the geth choice and collector base choice  had alot of moral conflict , that does not mean other did not. Many people did have  a lot of moralconflict over those choices.

pls show me where you saw many people having moral conflicts about those choices, because destroying or rewriting the Geth Heretics are basically doing the samething and the Collector Base choices falls other the player being Pro-Cerberus or Anti-Cerberus thats also not a hard moral conflict choice

You missed all the topic in the me2 forum when it came out calling it genocide andmoraly wrong to brain wash them?
Also, this choicewith the geth is well seen as moraly conflict...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives 

As I said before just because you had no issues with the choice does not mean other did not.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:41 .

[plfranke]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Not the same thing.  Destroy targets all synthetics.  You choose to shoot it so you know what it will kill, it's not because the reapers are exploding next to the geth that the geth die.  They die because they are targeted.  He says this.  He's telling you it will.  Your analogy only works if you can't be sure who it will kill-who might accidentally get caught in the crossfire.  If it was a magic machine gun and you were told that the people you mean to kill will die and so will every single innocent person in the crowd, you know it is targeting them.  That's not collateral damage.  Collateral is unintended.  If you point a gun and shoot it and you are told it will kill x people, at the moment you pull the trigger you intended to kill x people, no matter how unhappy you are that it happened.

You're right. My bad for trying to salvage your gun metaphor. It has to be something like a bomb

You can't twist it to make it work.  Once you know synthetics will die if you choose destroy, you have intentionally killed them.

Actually, his analogy is somewhat relevant if you take into account that you can't be entirely sure the kid is telling the truth.

[IamDanThaMan]

3DandBeyond wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

I have made no assumptions about you, only factual statements about your arguments. I really don't need to know your life story or what made you feel the need to escape your real life into a video game.

And I will be very happy to explain how sythesis works just as soon as you can tell me how it is we are supposed to create a machine that will kill all the synthetics, except for the ones we don't want it to kill, or kill all the part organic, part synthetics, except for the ones we don't want to kill.

I'm sorry, but poking holes in the game as it currently exists does not mean that your idea is not worse.

Did I love everything about ME3? No. Does that mean that I think it should be changed to how I think it should have ended? No.

This is what you said to me and that is an assumption.  Are you even aware anymore of what you are writing?

IamDanThaMan wrote...

You seem to still be hung up
on everything being "fair", and people "getting what they deserve",
have you never heard that life isn't fair, and that bad things happen to
good people?

It would be easy enough to explain how destroy might work-reaper IFF targeting.  It would recognize only reapers.

However, I asked you first and you are the one that loves the fantasy of these endings-explain how the magical beam can suddenly insert reaper tech into the bodies of every organic being in the galaxy as well as provide all synthetics with full understanding of organics.  And be specific as to where that understanding would come from, seeing as it's full understanding, it couldn't come from one lone human.

That was not an assumption, read the post you made immediately before that post by me, you were complaining why Shepard had to sacrifice himself for all these people that didn't listen to him, and Hackett should get payback for not preparing enough, there was no need for an assumption on my part.

You also seem to still be having a hard time reading my posts, since you just quoted my post where I said that I didn't love the ending and then stated that I loved the ending. Who's assuming things now?

So in your ending, the Geth don't die, but EDI still dies, along with Joker, your squad from the final push, and everyone else on the Normandy(which has a reaper IFF on board). I would be willing to concede including that as an ending. That would actually cause some to not pick it.

I am going to make an assumtion here though, is that alright with you? I am assuming that you never read any of the Mass Effect novels. The "beam" contains nanites, or nano-robots, that re-write the DNA of every organic and synthetic. This is how the process of indoctrination works, as well as the conversion of humans into husks. The crucible re-programs the nanites and sends out a beam of nanites that infect all technology and organics, and instructs the relay network to do the same(since they are reaper tech, it is no problem).

As shown in previous books and games, the indoctrination process causes there to be a link between the minds of those being indoctrinated, so there would be a shared consiousness to a certain level, thus understanding.

Now that wasn't so hard was it? You're a smart guy, you could have figured that out on your own if you had tried.

[dreman9999]

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No it's not.
Destroy is not an absolute answer because we can alway make synthetics and they can always rebel again. It just a band aid on a rotting wound.

Control does not just police syntheic. It also police oragnics. What would happen if the reapers turn on the organics?

In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?

And please, point me to the rotting wound of killer robots that exist in Shepard's world-you know the ones that rebeled against their creators and caused overwhelming conflict and chaos.  Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them.

1."In synthesis, there is nothing to stop someone from creating organic as well as synthetic life.  So, why wouldn't the killer robots strike again?"
Who said it would? That ws never stated to happen nor my point? Why ask?

2." Hint-the geth don't count because their creators rebelled against them."
Do you even know what rebel means.
 Ifthe creators rebel ageinst the geth, that would mean the gath were in charge. They were not. 
Rebel
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/rebel 
1. To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority.2. To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention.

The quarians were the authority and made a rulin gto kill the geth...The geth fought back...That means the geth rebeled.

Silliest thing ever-the geth fought to save their lives and that's rebelling.  So, you see the geth as killer robots even though they're willing to fight to help.

You also see killer robots as returning in destroy--if you believe that then you must see they can return in all choices, so all choices are temporary.

Please,the very concept of rebeing l is self defence. Self defence from  authority, self defence of you veiws and self defence of you needs and wants from authority. If the authority try to impose something on you and you fight back, your rebeling...Even if you fighting for you life.

It's also clear thatyou don't even see why synthetics are reabeling...It organics fault. Why? becaosue they are forcing synthtics to be tools.

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That only to you. The concept of moral conflit is your morality vs the reality of the sitsuation, aka morality vs goals.
The thing is morality is realitive. You may not think the things you need toget to you goal conflict with your morality..That means less moral conflict.
If you don't feel that the geth choice and collector base choice  had alot of moral conflict , that does not mean other did not. Many people did have  a lot of moralconflict over those choices.

pls show me where you saw many people having moral conflicts about those choices, because destroying or rewriting the Geth Heretics are basically doing the samething and the Collector Base choices falls other the player being Pro-Cerberus or Anti-Cerberus thats also not a hard moral conflict choice

You missed all the topic in the me2 forum when it came out calling it genocide andmoraly wrong to brain wash them?
Also, this choicewith the geth is well seen as moraly conflict...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives 

As I said before just because you had no issues with the choice does not mean other did not.

funny how your saying that line I bolded, since your've been doing that this whole thread

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Do you really think that genocide and totalitarianism can help you survive? If so, how long do you think you can survive? How long can you maintain the state of genocide and totalitarianism?

Didn't realize you were saying something that silly.

Nobody has to maintain a "state of genocide." Fire the Crucible and bang! After that, no more genocide required.

As for totalitarianism.... I'm guessing you mean control ..... Sheplyst probably won't remain invincible for very long. The galaxy wasn't that far from being able to handle the Reapers.

Perhaps I didn't word it well, I apologize for that

Lets try again: if you open a precedence of genocide and such thing is so easy to do, you will do it again

My point is, you cannot just use "survival" as an excuse to kill off everything or be a control freak, your survival may very well be dependent on the survival of the other, ironic I know since I choose destroy

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
You're right. My bad for trying to salvage your gun metaphor. It has to be something like a bomb

You can't twist it to make it work.  Once you know synthetics will die if you choose destroy, you have intentionally killed them.

Not necessarily. I may have intentionally done something that has the regrettable but unintended side-effect of killing them. Most deontological systems of morality have that sort of escape hatch. See, for instance, double effect.

As a utilitarian (close enough for tonight) I don't have access to that escape hatch. But I don't need it anyway. If these are the best consequences I can get then this was the best choice I could make. And if it's the best choice, it's the moral choice.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 septembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[dreman9999]

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

That only to you. The concept of moral conflit is your morality vs the reality of the sitsuation, aka morality vs goals.
The thing is morality is realitive. You may not think the things you need toget to you goal conflict with your morality..That means less moral conflict.
If you don't feel that the geth choice and collector base choice  had alot of moral conflict , that does not mean other did not. Many people did have  a lot of moralconflict over those choices.

pls show me where you saw many people having moral conflicts about those choices, because destroying or rewriting the Geth Heretics are basically doing the samething and the Collector Base choices falls other the player being Pro-Cerberus or Anti-Cerberus thats also not a hard moral conflict choice

You missed all the topic in the me2 forum when it came out calling it genocide andmoraly wrong to brain wash them?
Also, this choicewith the geth is well seen as moraly conflict...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives 

As I said before just because you had no issues with the choice does not mean other did not.

funny how your saying that line I bolded, since your've been doing that this whole thread

No I have not. I said it casue moral conflict but it does not have to be exteme with you. My pont is some do some don't.
And I been saying the ending is about that same concept of moral conflict.

[dreman9999]

 Op, I think you need to see this to see what I  mean about moral conflict.

http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives 

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Perhaps I didn't word it well, I apologize for that

Lets try again: if you open a precedence of genocide and such thing is so easy to do, you will do it again

My point is, you cannot just use "survival" as an excuse to kill off everything or be a control freak, your survival may very well be dependent on the survival of the other, ironic I know since I choose destroy

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In the face of immediate extinction worrying about later extinction is a luxury we don't have.

Most of my Sheps pick Control since Destroy is morally unacceptable if Control is available.

[Legion_RS]

Good post, OP!
The only thing I really wanted from the ending was a chat with Harbinger. That, for me, is the biggest disappointment. I still get the chills when I think of the talk with Sovereign on Virmire.

[ThaDPG]

plfranke wrote...

dreman what is wrong with you. why can't you write correctly. I mean I understand a typo here and there a little grammar mistake, but every one of your posts is just atrocious.

Also arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall.  He just keeps repeating the same argument over and over, and adds nothing new

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Perhaps I didn't word it well, I apologize for that

Lets try again: if you open a precedence of genocide and such thing is so easy to do, you will do it again

My point is, you cannot just use "survival" as an excuse to kill off everything or be a control freak, your survival may very well be dependent on the survival of the other, ironic I know since I choose destroy

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. In the face of immediate extinction worrying about later extinction is a luxury we don't have.

Most of my Sheps pick Control since Destroy is morally unacceptable if Control is available.

I accept your opinion because its subjective

Me: Morally grey + survival = destroy:mellow:

You: Morally acceptable + survival = control:)

[Warrior Craess]

dreman9999 wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Maybe somebody already pointed this out, maybe not, but I don't feel like reading 42 pages to find out so here it goes.

TC points out that he has several family members that fought in WW2, and his main complaint about the ending of the game is the methods that you must use to end the war that are very undesirable. Have you forgotten what it took to end WW2? The Americans and Russians carpet bombed the crap out of most of germany, decimating the country and then split it in two to be run by puppet governments. Japan had 2 nuclear bombs dropped on major population centers, killing many and causing radiation poisoning and cancer to generations.

War sucks. To end wars, particularly very bad wars, you often have to make terrible decisions, and there is almost never a way to totally prevent collateral damage. You just have to make what you believe to be the best available decisions that will be the best for the most people.

I feel that the ending of Mass Effect 3 shows the reality of war in the best way it can. I'm sorry that the decisions it presented you were so hard for you TC, but maybe now you will be able to sympathize a little bit more with the people who actually have to make those types of decisions in real life.

Best statement in the topic.

And completely misses the point of the OP.  
Earth in ruins, every city destroyed much more so than Japan at the end of WW2. 
In fact the home world of every single council race, and Terminus race has been nearly destroyed. 

How is any of that not severe collateral damage. 

The OP isn't asking for a change that takes any of that away, in fact he's saying that even more of that should occur in order to get a "happy ending"..

That's that problem and what the commeter is addressing. He is directly focusing on the fact that the op wants a happy ending. He's pointing out wars at the extremes are not like that.

He has a point.

Added, this is not the direction BW want the story to go. The very Idea for the ending is to bring the player to moral conflict because of the choices in hand. Having a happy ending choice negates the fact that the want to bring the player to moral conflict.

That it how the game orignally was advertized.
 

"Many choices to make, none of them easy."

yes becuase billions of people, and more worlds in ruins is a "happy ending"  so if it took 70% of the population of the galaxy to defeat the reapers conventionally, you'd still be pissing and moaning becuase we got a "happy ending".

you both are being willing ignornant, which means your doing this just to annoy people. 

So I'm done with you both.