wantedman dan wrote...
That's fine. The stories they told, however, were inspirational in their current form. If they were as "realistic" as Mass Effect's (theme-aborting) ending was, they would be atrocious (just as the ending was).
Yate wrote...
I've seen this view expressed in various places, and I wanted to set the record straight.
The Destroy ending is not genocide. The geth are not living things. They are machines that can be rebuilt. It's said as much by the catalyst.
If you sold Legion to Cerberus, a perfect copy of it is made by the geth. 'Death' is not the same for synthetics as it is for organics.
Even if you want to argue the geth are alive and have souls (they do not) their 'lives' are not the same as organic lives. If you delete a few of Legion's programs, it's central intelligence is not destroyed. It is a hivemind. Same is true for EDI, who uses the first-person only because it was designed to interface with humans. 'Death' for them is not permanent or absolute.
Destroy is not genocide. If the relays can be rebuilt, so can the geth.
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Your extreme example has no relevance. Mass Effect is a mature story, not a Disney Princess fable.
lol
Disney tales provide a pretty damn decent foundation in childhood that has taught numerous generations mature concepts.
Anything else, sport?
BatmanTurian wrote...
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
Guest_Fandango_*
Rip504 wrote...
Maxster_ wrote...
drayfish wrote...
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.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.
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.
I would like to see either of you quote someone avoiding responsibility for the destruction of the Geth. (Especially me) Do not put words into others mouth to back your claims. Shepard is responsible for the death of the Geth. Shepard did not chose to destroy the Geth. Shepard chose to destroy the Reapers. There is a big difference and intent means everything. NO Shepard did not intentionally commit genocide. If Shepard could have destroyed the Reapers while saving the Geth,I imagine Shepard would have. It was never Shepard's goal to wipe out the Geth,or Shepard could have done so on Rannoch. Saving the Geth on Rannoch proves Shepard is willing to do what he/she has to,In order to save the untied Galaxy as a whole. The choice is to destroy the Reapers,not to commit Genocide upon the Geth. The choice has consequences. Unclear Consequences as it is implied Shepard will also die,and that is not always he case.
Is Shepard partly responsible for the Destruction of the Geth? Derp Yes. So are the Reapers,United Galaxy,and the Catalyst. It took more then Shepard's choice to destroy the Reapers for the entire death of the Geth to occur.
Also there are only other options if your EMS allows it. As long as you stay to your own rules and beliefs there is no discussion to be had. The moment you look up the letter of the law,you will realize intent holds a great deal of weight. Shepard is not the one who chose to build and use the crucible. The entire Untied Galaxy did. They hold just as much responsibility. "They did not know." Well Ignorance is not an excuse. Also Shepard did not know how much truth is in what the Catalyst states. That argument can go both ways. Also do not assume the galaxy does not condone Shepard's action,or that they may not have made the same choice.
An entire race did potentially die. Shepard did not go on a conquest to destroy the Geth*,or Shepard could have done so on Rannoch. Proving Shepard's goals have nothing to do with the Destruction of the Geth. Shepard made a choice,and like most choices there was a consequence. Does Shepard hold responsibility for that Choice? Yes. Did Shepard systematically,and intentionally cruelly seek the destruction of the entire Geth race? No.
So Shepard does hold some responsibility for his/her choice. Shepard did not commit genocide.
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
So for kicks, Bioware decided to add in an ending that is overwhelmingly negative, despite having positive options throughout its series?
BatmanTurian wrote...
Sport? I'm trying to be civil and you choose to be condescending?
Whatever. Look, all stories have realism. It exists to give a foundation, even supernatural stories which fairy tales are.
This is a fact. Look at any story and the realism exists in some way (even if in a small way), because otherwise the human mind of the consumer won't accept the reality being presented in the story.
BatmanTurian wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
So for kicks, Bioware decided to add in an ending that is overwhelmingly negative, despite having positive options throughout its series?
I'm not Bioware. Why would you ask me this? Refuse is obviously a middle-finger from the writers.
Kabooooom wrote...
lol. So the soul discussion is still going on, eh? I'm seriously not sure if the people who are advocating that position actually believe in the existence of this invisible, intangible thing called a "soul" and that the Geth and any real-world synthetic type beings that could be constructed don't have one - or if they're just antagonistically trolling.
I'd like to conclude the latter, since the former is so absurd that it almost defies logic and reason...but this is internet, after all.
BatmanTurian wrote...
Rip504 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Even a game (or story) of fantasy has to be grounded in reality for the reader or player to accept the story. This is creative writing 101.
If all publishing studios abided by Bioware's "grounding" in reality, Disney films would not be so child appropriate.
For example, Cinderella would have met Prince Charming; however, when she turned into a pauper's child again, he would have dumped her. Or, in Aladdin, he would have met Jasmine but had his hand cut off for being a thief and his monkey killed.
You're talking about fairy tales here and using Disney as an example. That's a realllly bad example to prove your point, friend.
Not really. How much money has Disney made by telling fantasy stories? When concerning a story being told within a fantasy realm etc,one has to accept the fantasy. One can discount the entire Franchise when using realism.
Skyrim,TW2,Realism? When one is reading/playing/watching the fantasy,one needs to accept that story. Picking and choosing what one accepts in fantasy, makes it void in concept.
We accept Biotics/magic,but somehow this is based in realism. The story may hold some realism,but is not based on such. It is a sci-fi based on fantasy. IMO
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
BatmanTurian wrote...
Refuse is obviously a middle-finger from the writers.
Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:27 .
Sure we can talk about the soul like it is what makes a person who they are, but there isn't an individual something that makes them special. It's a philisophical argument and not a scientific one, which makes it much harder to come to a conclusion about who is right and who is wrong.
cannot be proven if it could be defined.
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
So for kicks, Bioware decided to add in an ending that is overwhelmingly negative, despite having positive options throughout its series?
I'm not Bioware. Why would you ask me this? Refuse is obviously a middle-finger from the writers.
You seemed keen on apologizing for Bioware so I figured I might as--in all seriousness, before you get offended again (God forbid), it was a rhetorical question making the point that despite what you said, there were clear, positive options from which to choose.
Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:28 .
Geneaux486 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Refuse is obviously a middle-finger from the writers.
It isn't. It's pretty much the only logical outcome of refusing to use the Crucible based on the established circumestances in the rest of the trilogy. Some people wanted the option to say no, Bioware gave it to them. If they wanted to make a conventional victory possible, they'd have had to have changed not only the established strength of the Reapers, but the galaxy's refusal to acknowlege and prepare for the threat in advance, and the damage the Reapers had already done to all these homeworlds up to that point.
Geneaux486 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Refuse is obviously a middle-finger from the writers.
It isn't. It's pretty much the only logical outcome of refusing to use the Crucible based on the established circumstances in the rest of the trilogy. Some people wanted the option to say no, Bioware gave it to them. If they wanted to make a conventional victory possible, they'd have had to have changed not only the established strength of the Reapers, but the galaxy's refusal to acknowlege and prepare for the threat in advance, and the damage the Reapers had already done to all these homeworlds, colonies, and resources up to that point.
BatmanTurian wrote...
Yes, but those " positive choices" could have negative consequences. Shepreaper is a benvolent dictator. ****** it off, it will go on a tear across the galaxy. Synthesis makes it so that technology and evolution are artificially halted.
the choices are not as clearly good as they appear at a glance.
BatmanTurian wrote...
All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.
Rip504 wrote...
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. I did not betray my own beliefs or foundations. I chose to destroy the Reapers. I have learned throughout life and during ME that many choices hold consequences.
I did not leave my Humanity behind. I made a conscious choice,which separates me from the Reapers. Not brings me closer to them. Making that decision creates more differnece between me and the Reapers. My choice was not only concerning the protection of life(not just organics, another separation between Shepard & the Reapers),but also concerning the Destruction of the Reapers.
The Reapers are incapable of making another decision to reach the same goal,Shepard is not. I do not lose my Humanity for deciding to destroy the Reapers. I disagree. I say making a choice and accepting the consequences for my actions does make me human.
Also "Innocent" allies is an opinion. A case can be made for the Geth not being such an Innocent species. Also they willingly chose to build and use the Crucible. A choice that has had consequences.
BatmanTurian wrote...
Basically the same thing.
Rip504 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Rip504 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
wantedman dan wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Even a game (or story) of fantasy has to be grounded in reality for the reader or player to accept the story. This is creative writing 101.
If all publishing studios abided by Bioware's "grounding" in reality, Disney films would not be so child appropriate.
For example, Cinderella would have met Prince Charming; however, when she turned into a pauper's child again, he would have dumped her. Or, in Aladdin, he would have met Jasmine but had his hand cut off for being a thief and his monkey killed.
You're talking about fairy tales here and using Disney as an example. That's a realllly bad example to prove your point, friend.
Not really. How much money has Disney made by telling fantasy stories? When concerning a story being told within a fantasy realm etc,one has to accept the fantasy. One can discount the entire Franchise when using realism.
Skyrim,TW2,Realism? When one is reading/playing/watching the fantasy,one needs to accept that story. Picking and choosing what one accepts in fantasy, makes it void in concept.
We accept Biotics/magic,but somehow this is based in realism. The story may hold some realism,but is not based on such. It is a sci-fi based on fantasy. IMO
And if you accept that realism it is based in, then you have to accept that many decisions you make in Mass Effect are morally questionable. No matter what you do, your choices have consequences. Some are more negative than others but all of them have some negative.
Yes as I have stated many times on this very page. Choices/Decisions hold consequences. We disagree on what ME3 is based on. I say the ME Franchise is based on Fantasy,which does not change the moral implications of one's choice. As we are real players,living in the real world. I say Fantasy products can hold some real life basis,but is not the foundation for a sci-fi fantasy such as ME. The moment I spam Biotics,it no longer feels real,or based on realism. I accept the fantasy. I also accept the moral implications of my choices.
The universe has considered Shepard a Hero,and will continue to do so long after ME3. So the galaxy has accepted and condoned my decision. As 10,000 years later Shepard is still remembered as a Legend. Not a Genocidal Maniac.!.
Geneaux486 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Basically the same thing.
Basically it's as different as it is when you go into the specifics.
BatmanTurian wrote...
Rip504 wrote...
The universe has considered Shepard a Hero,and will continue to do so long after ME3. So the galaxy has accepted and condoned my decision. As 10,000 years later Shepard is still remembered as a Legend. Not a Genocidal Maniac.!.
that last part is true. Stargazer makes no sense if Shepard is considered a war criminal in history books/disks/pads/whatever.
that last part is true. Stargazer makes no sense if Shepard is considered a war criminal in history books/disks/pads/whatever.
Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:35 .
BatmanTurian wrote...
No it really is no different. We said we wanted a conventional victory and rejected the endings, they gave us a refuse option and said " no you can't have a conventional victory. " Open and shut case.
Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:37 .
BatmanTurian wrote...
Geneaux486 wrote...
BatmanTurian wrote...
Basically the same thing.
Basically it's as different as it is when you go into the specifics.
No it really is no different. We said we wanted a conventional victory and rejected the endings, they gave us a refuse option and said " no you can't have a conventional victory. " Open and shut case.
Retour en haut