1304 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.

war is inhumane, because life is degraded. in war, shades of gray exist, because people in the field are willing to do horrible things. still, the decision to do inhumane things is up to them. 

a helicopter pilot may kill an enemy by pulling the tripper - but is is his own decision to make jokes about the lifes he just took. (bye, bye miss american pie)

War is inhumane no matter what decisions you make. There is NO clean way to wage war, which is why it should be the last resort. But when it is thrust on you ( as it is by the Reapers), you are justified to do all in your power to survive. Unless you are a naive pacifist. In that case, why are you playing a game where you shoot people?

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the needs of many, do not outweight the needs of few. by taking such a position, you degrade the few to lesser beings. this position is contrary to basic human (and in our case: alien) rights.

the choice is yours but you do not have to bear the same consequences. you decide, that the needs of many are superior, to the rights of the few. thats a bid difference.

even the few have rights and ultimately a right to voice their opinion.

the few gave their opinions. The Geth said no more compromise and EDI said she'd risk nonfunctionality. People saying the Geth and EDI gave no opinion on what Shep should do obviously ignore this part or weren't paying attention.

[wantedman dan]

Wrong thread. Sh*t. 

Modifié par wantedman dan, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:38 .

[Aaleel]

Genocide is a person(s) singling out a group of people for what they are be it religion, nationality, etc and setting out with a singular goal and purpose to wipe these people out for no other reason than what they are. Not what happened here.

If Destroy is genocide than so was Arrival based on what I'm reading in this thread. You made a conscious choice that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of beings of a single race, circumstances be damned, whether it was your intent or purpose to kill Batarians or not.

Geth dying in a military strike on reapers is called collateral damage.

[Geneaux486]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
they did that, because if a conventional victory would be possible at the point of relase, nearly everybody would do it. it would defacto negate the other "big endings"

all endings are highly questionable.

That and the fact that the Reapers steamrolled the Turian military (stated to be the strongest of the Citadel races) at their homeworld, savaged Earth, and overtook Thessia even though they had a little extra time to prepare without using the bulk of their forces would make a hell of a lot less sense if at the end a fleet of the galaxy's leftovers could somehow suddenly best them.

Isn't it kind of the point that people requested the endings be changed to accomodate conventional victory. Refuse was Bioware's middle finger.

That's just it though.  To make conventional victory at that point in the story a remote possibilty would require changing the entire game and beyond, not just the ending.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:41 .

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

they did that, because if a conventional victory would be possible at the point of relase, nearly everybody would do it. it would defacto negate the other "big endings"

all endings are highly questionable.

Yep.

[AlanC9]

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.

All that's true, but I'm starting to think that maybe adding Refuse was a bad idea. The people who really, really wanted Refuse get thir feelings hurt. Those of us from whom it's just an interesting RP choice get a nice little bonus, but maybe our small benefit is outweighed by their hurt feelings?

[BatmanTurian]

Kabooooom wrote...

that last part is true. Stargazer makes no sense if Shepard is considered a war criminal in history books/disks/pads/whatever.

Ironically, they probably just don't know. To outside observers, they observe: Shep enters Citadel, Crucible didn't fire, Shep is compelled to figure it out by Hackett - Crucible fires. In Synthesis or Destroy, everyone would just assume that was the original purpose of the Crucible. In Control - does anyone really know Shep is the new Reaperkid?

Who knows. One could extrapolate that Shep contacts humanity with a hologram, but really... who knows. Just more incompleteness from the endings.

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

My point exactly, and no, the point wasn't discussing the endings. The endings were a thematic abortion.

alrighty, then we're good.

[Geneaux486]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

All that's true, but I'm starting to think that maybe adding Refuse was a bad idea. The people who really, really wanted Refuse get thir feelings hurt. Those of us from whom it's just an interesting RP choice get a nice little bonus, but maybe our small benefit is outweighed by their hurt feelings?

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think it's a shame that people are still so broken up about the endings.  If the question was would I miss the refuse option, the answer'd be "no".

[wantedman dan]

Aaleel wrote...

Genocide is a person(s) singling out a group of people for what they are be it religion, nationality, etc and setting out with a singular goal and purpose to wipe these people out for no other reason than what they are. Not what happened here.

If Destroy is genocide than so was Arrival based on what I'm reading in this thread. You made a conscious choice that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of beings of a single race, circumstances be damned, whether it was your intent or purpose to kill Batarians or not.

Geth dying in a military strike on reapers is called collateral damage.

Just... stop. False equivalency: the Batarians weren't collateral damage because of the fact that they were Batarians.

Read below:

Geneaux486 wrote...

How'd this go on for so long? Yes, destroy is genocide within the lore of the game. It's made very clear to the player from the moment you talk to Legion and beyond that the Geth have long since evolved to something beyond simple machines. They got aspirations, goals, they're capable of compassion, and at the end of the Rannoch story arc in ME3 their thought process get even more abstract and organic than ever before. The value of synthetics as self-aware, thinking beings is one of the major themes of the entire trilogy.

[Han Shot First]

Aaleel wrote...

Genocide is a person(s) singling out a group of people for what they are be it religion, nationality, etc and setting out with a singular goal and purpose to wipe these people out for no other reason than what they are. Not what happened here.

If Destroy is genocide than so was Arrival based on what I'm reading in this thread. You made a conscious choice that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of beings of a single race, circumstances be damned, whether it was your intent or purpose to kill Batarians or not.

Geth dying in a military strike on reapers is called collateral damage.

[wantedman dan]

BatmanTurian wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

My point exactly, and no, the point wasn't discussing the endings. The endings were a thematic abortion.

alrighty, then we're good.

For God's sake, man, I chose refuse. That's how badly I detest the abomination that Mass Effect 3 became.

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

Ad populum arguments on the grandest scale.

True, but we can only work with what they give us. I'm not crazy about it either. Details were lost with time obviously. It's like they're telling the equivalent of Gilgamesh.

[Kabooooom]

If Destroy is genocide than so was Arrival based on what I'm reading in this thread. You made a conscious choice that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of beings of a single race, circumstances be damned, whether it was your intent or purpose to kill Batarians or not.

It basically was - why sugarcoat it? The point of the Destroy option is to make you feel uncomfortable with choosing it because of a) the moral implications and the fact that the Catalyst clearly does not favor it and makes it out to be the Renegade option.

But most of us still pick it anyways, because we reason that wiping out an entire species is worth destroying the Reapers. I consider the Geth to be sentient, and fully alive. Same with EDI. Still killed them all. I'd have done it if it was the Salarians, Asari, or humans as well. That's the consequences of the choice.

The argument really started because OP was trying to rationalize away the moral conundrum of choosing Destroy - but doing that misses the point entirely. It is intended to be a difficult, bittersweet choice.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...



For God's sake, man, I chose refuse. That's how badly I detest the abomination that Mass Effect 3 became.

Wait...Destroy is genocide but condemning every space faring civilization (including the Geth, by the way) to extinction in Refuse is not? That's some fuzzy logic there.

[RadicalDisconnect]

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.

I think you need to pay more attention to the codex.

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Now, you could argue that since even organic humans can be revived in the ME universe as shown in Project Lazarus, the same principle can be extended to reviving "dead" AI's.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:52 .

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

Yes, but those " positive choices" could have negative consequences. Shepreaper is a benevolent 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.

Actually the epilogue to synthesis post EC indicates that technology is advancing at an unparralelled pace, just saying.  Make of that what you will. 

[Aaleel]

wantedman dan wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Genocide is a person(s) singling out a group of people for what they are be it religion, nationality, etc and setting out with a singular goal and purpose to wipe these people out for no other reason than what they are. Not what happened here.

If Destroy is genocide than so was Arrival based on what I'm reading in this thread. You made a conscious choice that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of beings of a single race, circumstances be damned, whether it was your intent or purpose to kill Batarians or not.

Geth dying in a military strike on reapers is called collateral damage.

Just... stop. False equivalency: the Batarians weren't collateral damage because of the fact that they were Batarians.

I wasn't calling the Batarians collateral damage, I called the Geth collateral damage.  My point on the Batarians was that you didn't commit  genocide on the Batarians just because a large group of them died due to a choice you made.

Modifié par Aaleel, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:49 .

[Geneaux486]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...



For God's sake, man, I chose refuse. That's how badly I detest the abomination that Mass Effect 3 became.

Wait...Destroy is genocide but condemning every space faring civilization (including the Geth, by the way) to extinction in Refuse is not? That's some fuzzy logic there.

You could argue that Shepard, either in truth or by his own belief, has no right to make a decision on such a grand scale.  In refuse he's saying "I'm not going to change everything or do what you think is right," not "Go ahead and harvest us," but in destroy, he is knowingly making a decision that will destroy the Geth and EDI.  I don't favor either choice, but there are notable differences between them.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:50 .

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...



For God's sake, man, I chose refuse. That's how badly I detest the abomination that Mass Effect 3 became.

Wait...Destroy is genocide but condemning every space faring civilization (including the Geth, by the way) to extinction in Refuse is not? That's some fuzzy logic there.

No, it isn't. I cannot be held liable for the choices of another, especially if I must conduct myself in a manner similar to the way in which they conduct themselves in order to stop them.

[Kabooooom]

Actually the epilogue to synthesis post EC indicates that technology is advancing at an unparralelled pace, just saying. Make of that what you will.

Indeed, but the moral question posed by the Synthesis ending is: If the galaxy will eventually reach Synthesis anyways, is it morally right to forcefully impose it upon everyone now?

My answer to that is no, but other people have different opinions. Also, the Reapers are an abomination. No organic race would want to be preserved in Reaper form forever like that. So destroying them is a top priority for me.

[Dr_Extrem]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.

war is inhumane, because life is degraded. in war, shades of gray exist, because people in the field are willing to do horrible things. still, the decision to do inhumane things is up to them. 

a helicopter pilot may kill an enemy by pulling the tripper - but is is his own decision to make jokes about the lifes he just took. (bye, bye miss american pie)

War is inhumane no matter what decisions you make. There is NO clean way to wage war, which is why it should be the last resort. But when it is thrust on you ( as it is by the Reapers), you are justified to do all in your power to survive. Unless you are a naive pacifist. In that case, why are you playing a game where you shoot people?

(btw. this is a philosophical approach to the justification of genocide - so dont try to insult me)

so .. if the sh*tstorm is hard enough, we throw our "highly valued" principles over board? i never stated that there is a clean war. i am definatlely not that naive. but people still decide to throw their humanity away (or to act like scum)

who justifies it? .. if the result is your only justification, then we have a big problem.

[wantedman dan]

Aaleel wrote...

I wasn't calling the Batarians collateral damage, I called the Geth collateral damage.  My point on the Batarians was that you didn't commit  genocide on the Batarians just because a large group of them died due to a choice you made.

...

You weren't killing Batarians because they were Batarians. You killed Geth because they were synthetic.

Better?

[BatmanTurian]

Lord Aesir wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

Yes, but those " positive choices" could have negative consequences. Shepreaper is a benevolent 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.

Actually the epilogue to synthesis post EC indicates that technology is advancing at an unparralelled pace, just saying.  Make of that what you will. 

But. eventually it will stagnate because diversity is no longer possible. Without diversity, no new ideas can be formed because there are no longer unique viewpoints. Without new ideas, there will be no new technology or philosophy after whatever knowledge from dead races is given. Art will be dead since everybody is already happy anyway and noone will need to be entertained.