1304 réponses à ce sujet

[M Hedonist]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

Yate wrote...

The geth are not living things. They are machines that can be rebuilt. It's said as much by the catalyst.

Picture this: Eventually cloning will become viable. I fear for the future if people with your mindset become the majority.

If people of this mindset become the majority, then fear not for the future, because cloning will not happen. You have more to worry about the present majority, who doesn't care about pollution and war, and spend the resources in selfishness instead of doing everything they can to help those who really need it. If you think cloning is a good way to help people that already exist, explain it to me please.

Are you telling me the world sucks, anyway? That's an outlook that renders any argument based on a hypothetical future irrelevant.

[Maxster_]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...
...
Yes. There is always another way.

Some players only got a Destroy and Refuse option.

I got Alt+F4 option. It is way better, believe me

Not this crap again

Every time i see someone posting about "benefits" of a synthesis ending, i'm saying this to myself

[M Hedonist]

Just allow me to rephrase:
Picture this: It is a perfect future, where poverty and war don't exist anymore. Cloning becomes viable. How much would a human life be worth when one can be recreated from scratch?

In the end, when you think practically and break everything down (artificial life will always only be "machines"), humans are nothing but biological machines - born to reproduce and preserve. There is no such thing as "worth" in this world. Something is only worth as much as people assign it worth. If something has no worth because it can be recreated, human life (potentially) has no worth, either.

[Rip504]

The Geth chose to help Shepard. The Geth chose to help build and USE the Crucible. The Geth knew there would be a great chance that Shepard and the Alliance would be in control of this Crucible. The Crucible was intended as a Giant Super weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers.

That is what happen. Shepard intended to destroy the Reapers. Shepard's intention was not to commit genocide upon the Geth. Nothing more then a casualty of war,a consequence to a decision. One the United galaxy chose upon. The use of the Crucible. Even the Geth agreed to using the Crucible.

So do you blame the entire united galaxy for building a genocidal weapon? Or just Shepard for convenience?

[clarkusdarkus]

Didnt really care for the geth anyway, a sacrifice i was willing to make for machines, but since shepard is in rubble somewhere its looking like a sacrifice that was worthless anyway.

Legion was unique but still a geth so he should die the ed-209 wanabee

[Maxster_]

Rip504 wrote...

The Geth chose to help Shepard. The Geth chose to help build and USE the Crucible. The Geth knew there would be a great chance that Shepard and the Alliance would be in control of this Crucible. The Crucible was intended as a Giant Super weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers.

That is what happen. Shepard intended to destroy the Reapers. Shepard's intention was not to commit genocide upon the Geth. Nothing more then a casualty of war,a consequence to a decision. One the United galaxy chose upon. The use of the Crucible. Even the Geth agreed to using the Crucible.

So do you blame the entire united galaxy for building a genocidal weapon? Or just Shepard for convenience?

And they now SUDDENLY know what they were building?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

There is no definite proof that the Geth die in Destroy. There is proof that EDI dies in Destroy.

There are two ways of interpreting what the catalyst tells you: the way you've interpreted it for 15 pages and this way.

* the crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic. ....... and so are the space ships, makos, rifles, omnitools, biotic implants, cybernetic implants (the Quarians didn't die), etc.

* your crucible is mostly intact or complete (I can't remember the exact wording and I'm not going to listen it's late). You will lose stuff but no more than you've already lost. Okay so this could tell me that at the time I shoot the tube what's already been destroyed is what is going to be destroyed and maybe a little more. The reapers and anything build out of the reapers will be destroyed -- this is what I think did in EDI. The Geth on the other hand are not built from reapers. They have code written by reapers but it's not reaper hardware like EDI.

We do not see the Geth being destroyed. We only see EDIs name on the board. The Geth are not specifically mentioned anymore. So there may not be genocide of the Geth at all with the Destroy ending. We just do not see them represented in the end. We don't see the Batarians represented either, nor the Hanar, the Elcor, the Drell, the Volus, either.

So basically one can be told to head canon the Geth, just like the breath scene with Shepard.

So 15 pages and there is a possibility there might not be genocide at all.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 08 octobre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Rip504]

Maxster_ wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

The Geth chose to help Shepard. The Geth chose to help build and USE the Crucible. The Geth knew there would be a great chance that Shepard and the Alliance would be in control of this Crucible. The Crucible was intended as a Giant Super weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers.

That is what happen. Shepard intended to destroy the Reapers. Shepard's intention was not to commit genocide upon the Geth. Nothing more then a casualty of war,a consequence to a decision. One the United galaxy chose upon. The use of the Crucible. Even the Geth agreed to using the Crucible.

So do you blame the entire united galaxy for building a genocidal weapon? Or just Shepard for convenience?

And they now SUDDENLY know what they were building?

So you are saying the United Galaxy did not intend to build a Genocidal Weapon. Suggesting they are innocent of the crime. Shepard did not intend to commit Genocide upon the Geth,but rather intended to Destroy the Reapers. Making Shepard innocent of Genocide. As it was not their Intent. They were building a weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers. There may be risk. Acceptable risks. They did not intend or know,but they still did build a genocidal weapon.

Modifié par Rip504, 08 octobre 2012 - 09:53 .

[Mavqt]

It depends on how you define 'life.'

[vixvicco]

I agree. No matter what, synthetics are synthetics. Organics are not designed. By chance, one is made.

No, Legion does not have a soul. No at all. Sorry.

[JPR1964]

HiddenInWar wrote...

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

+1

Geth and EDI are "alive", synthetics, but alive...

Killing them all to achieve your goal is just put yourself at the level of Starbrat : very low in term of humanity, or very renegade... <_<

Just destroy Starbrat, this one has really no idea what's alive means...

JPR out!

[Maxster_]

Rip504 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

The Geth chose to help Shepard. The Geth chose to help build and USE the Crucible. The Geth knew there would be a great chance that Shepard and the Alliance would be in control of this Crucible. The Crucible was intended as a Giant Super weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers.

That is what happen. Shepard intended to destroy the Reapers. Shepard's intention was not to commit genocide upon the Geth. Nothing more then a casualty of war,a consequence to a decision. One the United galaxy chose upon. The use of the Crucible. Even the Geth agreed to using the Crucible.

So do you blame the entire united galaxy for building a genocidal weapon? Or just Shepard for convenience?

And they now SUDDENLY know what they were building?

So you are saying the United Galaxy did not intend to build a Genocidal Weapon. Suggesting they are innocent of the crime. Shepard did not intend to commit Genocide upon the Geth,but rather intended to Destroy the Reapers. Making Shepard innocent of Genocide. As it was not their Intent. They were building a weapon potentially capable of defeating the Reapers. There may be risk. Acceptable risks. They did not intend or know,but they still did build a genocidal weapon.

They don't know what they are building. They assumed that this was the weapon to defeat the reapers.
Also, who is responsible - those who create a weapon, or those, who pulled the trigger?

[AlexMBrennan]

"Does this unit have a soul?"

That is the only sentence I need to refute that argument.

Firstly, it's a question and not statement of fact. Legion does not claim that he has a soul, he merely repeated a question he knew to be effective from the Morning War records.

Secondly, he's an in-universe guy. He could be mistaken or lying - in particular, since you're holding a gun to his head at that point he's got every reason to make any claim (true or false) to make Shepard not shoot him.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:38 .

[Rip504]

Maxster_ wrote...
Also, who is responsible - those who create a weapon, or those, who pulled the trigger?

Shepard did not kill the Geth. The power from the Crucible did. If I create a weapon and give it to you,and then you kill someone with it. I bet you I will be held responsible for my role. It may not have been my intention for you to kill,but you still did.

They did not know,so do not assume they do not approve,or they would not have made the same decision. Shepard NEVER chose to kill the Geth. Shepard chose to kill the Reapers. Simple. Did Shepard know it would potentially kill the Geth? Yes. Is that why Shepard chose to destroy the Reapers? No.

Do you blame the Soldier,or the orders? Shepard was on the Crucible following orders. Shepard's orders were to use the Crucible and defeat the Reapers. As Shepard did. Also at the time of the choice,the consequences are unknown,and only implied in small ways.

[JBPBRC]

Choosing Destroy is choosing salvation for the Reapers (and consequently synthetics) through destruction. Poetic justice.

[Maxster_]

Rip504 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
Also, who is responsible - those who create a weapon, or those, who pulled the trigger?

Shepard did not kill the Geth. The power from the Crucible did. If I create a weapon and give it to you,and then you kill someone with it. I bet you I will be held responsible for my role. It may not have been my intention for you to kill,but you still did.

They did not know,so do not assume they do not approve,or they would not have made the same decision. Shepard NEVER chose to kill the Geth. Shepard chose to kill the Reapers. Simple. Did Shepard know it would potentially kill the Geth? Yes. Is that why Shepard chose to destroy the Reapers? No.

Do you blame the Soldier,or the orders? Shepard was on the Crucible following orders. Shepard's orders were to use the Crucible and defeat the Reapers. As Shepard did. Also at the time of the choice,the consequences are unknown,and only implied in small ways.

What?

Shepard NEVER chose to kill the Geth

"It is now in your power to destroy us. But be warned, others will be destroyed as well. The crucible will not discriminate. All synthetics will be targeted."
Link

Except he is.

They did not know,so do not assume they do not approve,or they would not
have made the same decision. Shepard NEVER chose to kill the Geth.
Shepard chose to kill the Reapers. Simple. Did Shepard know it would
potentially kill the Geth? Yes. Is that why Shepard chose to destroy the
Reapers? No.

So, you saying, is that genocide as a collaterial damage is perfectly acceptable. Perfect.
This is justification of the genocide - the renegade way.

Do you blame the Soldier,or the orders? Shepard was on the Crucible
following orders. Shepard's orders were to use the Crucible and defeat
the Reapers. As Shepard did. Also at the time of the choice,the
consequences are unknown,and only implied in small ways.

It is justification of the genocide as collaterial damage, - as long as order was given. That excuse never worked.

[drayfish]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Anyone else find the attempts of some here to absolve Shep of all responsibility a little disgusting? There's really no wiggle room here peeps, if Shep chooses to sacrafice the Geth it's genocide. Why? Because it's genocide.

Agreed.  The game was specifically designed that way.  Choosing Destroy is intentionally, knowingly exterminating a race that the narrative has compelled you to see as living, autonomous beings.  ...Oh, yeah, and they're fighting alongside you too.  For you.  Trusting you.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to pick Destroy (there is no right choice; they all heart-achingly suck), but I find it extremely sad to see people attempt to excuse their way around responsibility. 

A race was terminated.  You did it.  There were other options. 

If you think it was for the greater good, that's one thing, but pretending it was 'leaving a dog behind', or 'shooting the hostage' only cowardly belittles the act, and further insults the victims who have already been stripped of enough.



...And can I say again how proud I am of Bioware for making this their legacy?

Mass Effect: endorsing war-crimes since 2012.

Modifié par drayfish, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:28 .

[Aaleel]

Say aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and were centralized in one place. Then say the people of the world made a weapon that would kill them but it had a chance to wipe out whatever area it was in.

If the weapon was deployed and used and wiped out an entire country it was used in and most of its population, would either the commander who gave the order or the soldier who carried it out be charged with genocide?

No, why? Because it wasn't. Especially given this definition.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

[Maxster_]

drayfish wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Anyone else find the attempts of some here to absolve Shep of all responsibility a little disgusting? There's really no wiggle room here peeps, if Shep chooses to sacrafice the Geth it's genocide. Why? Because it's genocide.

Agreed.  The game was specifically designed that way.  Choosing Deatroy is intentionally, knowingly exterminating a race that the narrative has compelled you to see as living, autonomous beings.  ...Oh, yeah, and they're fighting alongside you too.  For you.  Trusting you.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to pick Destroy (there is no right choice; they all heart-achingly suck), but I find it extremely sad to see people attempt to excuse their way around responsibility. 

A race was terminated.  You did it.  There were other options. 
...

I think that.. other, well, choice, is much much worse. Even by the number of sentient beings involved.

Modifié par Maxster_, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:29 .

[Xilizhra]

drayfish wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Anyone else find the attempts of some here to absolve Shep of all responsibility a little disgusting? There's really no wiggle room here peeps, if Shep chooses to sacrafice the Geth it's genocide. Why? Because it's genocide.

Agreed.  The game was specifically designed that way.  Choosing Destroy is intentionally, knowingly exterminating a race that the narrative has compelled you to see as living, autonomous beings.  ...Oh, yeah, and they're fighting alongside you too.  For you.  Trusting you.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to pick Destroy (there is no right choice; they all heart-achingly suck), but I find it extremely sad to see people attempt to excuse their way around responsibility. 

A race was terminated.  You did it.  There were other options. 

If you think it was for the greater good, that's one thing, but pretending it was 'leaving a dog behind', or 'shooting the hostage' only cowardly belittles the act, and further insults the victims who have already been stripped of enough.



...And can I say again how proud I am of Bioware for making this their legacy?

Mass Effect: endorsing war-crimes since 2012.

If it helps, the other two endings aren't war crimes. Control just involves taking over a previously existing device, and Synthesis... is definitely not written down anywhere.

[Maxster_]

Sure, mass slavery and mass forced mutilation are way better than genocide.

Modifié par Maxster_, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:50 .

[JBPBRC]

Maxster_ wrote...

Sure, mass slavery and mass forced mutilation are way better than genocide.

Unless they make all endings canon much like Deus Ex, one of their inspirations. You can enjoy all three at once!

[Xilizhra]

Maxster_ wrote...

Sure, mass slavery and mass forced mutilation are way better than genocide.

Actually, I think they are. Given the whole lack of killing involved. Also, "mutilation" implies damage or reduction of capabilities was done, which it wasn't.

[Maxster_]

Xilizhra wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Sure, mass slavery and mass forced mutilation are way better than genocide.

Actually, I think they are. Given the whole lack of killing involved. Also, "mutilation" implies damage or reduction of capabilities was done, which it wasn't.

You know, excusing forced cyborgization with "benefits" that forced cyborgization will bring - is not an excuse.
It is forced.
It is still a war crime. It is still disregarding the humans ethics.

P.S. Well, EAWare got their speculations, it seems. Now we are speculating what war crime is better to commit.

Modifié par Maxster_, 08 octobre 2012 - 12:00 .