1304 réponses à ce sujet

[KotorEffect3]

wantedman dan wrote...

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?

You killed geth because it was the only way to kill the reapers.  Just like killing the batarians was the only way to stall the reapers.

[wantedman dan]

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

If everyone is happy an in a state of euphoria at all times, is anyone really in such a state?

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

You killed geth because it was the only way to kill the reapers.  Just like killing the batarians was the only way to stall the reapers.

Irrelevant.

Oh, wait, someone said "Refuse." You must have that charm on the word like the Death Eaters did for "Voldemort."

[Dr_Extrem]

Geneaux486 wrote...

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.

the reaper are way too stron in the 3rd game. it took centuries to whipe out all protheans and there, the reper had the advantage of isolating every star system by shutting down the relay network,

the reaper are not bashing the universe that hard because they are powerful, they do it, because the writers want them to do so.

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

No the problem is that you don't understand that there will be situations if you are in danger where your principles will have to be thrown overboard or you will be violated, tortured, murdered, enslaved etc. If it's for self-protection, how is it more evil than the person forcing you to do it to protect yourself? It's chastising the victim for sticking up for themselves.

BTW, the naive part wasn't meant as in insult. it's a description I attached to absolute pacifism. It really is naive to believe you should never do any violence ever, even to defend yourself or others.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:56 .

[AlanC9]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

That's exactly what we do. The whole point of having a moral code is that following it gives us a better world. If that code, instead, would get the world completely destroyed..... you need a better code.

[Aaleel]

wantedman dan wrote...

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?

Not true at all.  When you went onto the Crucible had you singled out Geth to die?  Was your intent in building and using the crucible to kill Geth and only Geth? 

Because that's the only way it would constitue genocide.

Modifié par Aaleel, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:56 .

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

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?

Except Shepard didn't.

Shepard killed the Reapers and the Geth died as collateral damage. The only scenario where Shepard can actually set out to destroy the Geth is during the Rannoch mission.

[wantedman dan]

Aaleel wrote...

Not true at all.  When you went onto the Crucible had you singled out Geth to die?  Was your intent in building and using the crucible to kill Geth and only Geth? 

Dear God... This argument again.

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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.

If everyone is happy an in a state of euphoria at all times, is anyone really in such a state?

Who knows? I, thankfully, did not write these endings.

[Kabooooom]

If everyone is happy an in a state of euphoria at all times, is anyone really in such a state?

Synthesis probably isn't a utopia - there is likely still conflict. The only thing that is resolved is the organic-synthetic conflict, which is the only thing the Catalyst cared about anyways. That, and Reaper self-preservation. Synthesis is a win-win for him.

[Aaleel]

wantedman dan wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Not true at all.  When you went onto the Crucible had you singled out Geth to die?  Was your intent in building and using the crucible to kill Geth and only Geth? 

Dear God... This argument again.

Well that's pretty much what constitutes genocide.  You intent to single out and systematically destroy one group of people based on nothing than the group they belong to.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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?

Except Shepard didn't.

Shepard killed the Reapers and the Geth died as collateral damage. The only scenario where Shepard can actually set out to destroy the Geth is during the Rannoch mission.

Now you're just factually incorrect.

We've been through this very argument before. Spin it all you'd like; fact is, you went in with the knowledge that the Crucible wouldn't discriminate should you choose destroy. Therefore, you willfully and deliberately chose to exterminate Geth alongside the Reapers because they were synthetic.

[wantedman dan]

Aaleel wrote...

Well that's pretty much what constitutes genocide.  You intent to single out and systematically destroy one group of people based on nothing than the group they belong to.

Read my post to Han. I'm leaving it at that.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

You are arguing that the Geth being unintentionally destroyed in the Red Ending is genocide, whereas the Geth and every other space faring civilization being unintentionally destroyed as a result of Refuse is not.

Sorry, but that is hilarious.

[Kabooooom]

Well that's pretty much what constitutes genocide. You intent to single out and systematically destroy one group of people based on nothing than the group they belong to.

Okay, fine - definitions are definitions. Why don't we just call Destroy "mass murder" instead? Will everyone be happy? Because I'd still pick Destroy anyways.

But then you'd probably have people making threads entitled "Destroy isn't mass murder!" just so they can feel better about doing it.

[wantedman dan]

Kabooooom wrote...

If everyone is happy an in a state of euphoria at all times, is anyone really in such a state?

Synthesis probably isn't a utopia - there is likely still conflict. The only thing that is resolved is the organic-synthetic conflict, which is the only thing the Catalyst cared about anyways. That, and Reaper self-preservation. Synthesis is a win-win for him.

The way in which it was presented was utopic. Everyone was working together in progression, even the goddamn reapers.

[AlanC9]

Kabooooom wrote...

If everyone is happy an in a state of euphoria at all times, is anyone really in such a state?

Synthesis probably isn't a utopia - there is likely still conflict. The only thing that is resolved is the organic-synthetic conflict, which is the only thing the Catalyst cared about anyways. That, and Reaper self-preservation. Synthesis is a win-win for him.

Right, but who cares what the Catalyst wants?

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

You are arguing that the Geth being unintentionally destroyed in the Red Ending is genocide, whereas the Geth and every other space faring civilization being unintentionally destroyed as a result of Refuse is not.

Sorry, but that is hilarious.

I'm glad that you've kept up this entire time.

[O Dubhghaill]

At the end of the day you can't claim a moral superiority over 'destroy' - this was the 'sine qua non' upon which the series was predicated - find a way to defeat the Reapers. Not 'utilise for your own ends'. Every philosophical bone in my body required me to bring an end to the cycle.

[Heimdall]

Kabooooom wrote...

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.

I know, I like that they let the endings all have drawbacks like that so that people form their own unique opions on the matter easily.  I felt the greatest drawback of Synthesis was how much of a leap of fate it was, personally, and found the possible benefits worth the moral ambiguity.  But like you, said, an opinion.

I mean, I think Bioware screwed up the endings and that there's a serious thematic disconnect between Mass Effect from after meeting the Catalyst and everything before, but I really don't like it when people try to rationalize away the clearly represented negative  connotations of their choice.  They missed the point.

[Kabooooom]

The way in which it was presented was utopic. Everyone was working together in progression, even the goddamn reapers.

For the time being. But how long can something like that last? a) It's an unnatural state of affairs. Let's be honest. Bioware is probably going to make Synth canon, and ME4 will probably be based in the synth universe, and there will probably be conflict in the story.

God, that will suck. I really hope that is not what they decide to do.

I mean, I think Bioware screwed up the endings and that there's a
serious thematic disconnect between Mass Effect from after meeting the
Catalyst and everything before, but I really don't like it when people
try to rationalize away the clearly represented negative  connotations
of their choice.  They missed the point.

I agree. Initially, I hated the endings. Now, I like the idea of them, and the debate that they stimulate...but they certainly could have been executed way, way better.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:02 .

[AlanC9]

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
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.

You are arguing that the Geth being unintentionally destroyed in the Red Ending is genocide, whereas the Geth and every other space faring civilization being unintentionally destroyed as a result of Refuse is not.
Sorry, but that is hilarious.

Deontology often is.

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

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?

Except Shepard didn't.

Shepard killed the Reapers and the Geth died as collateral damage. The only scenario where Shepard can actually set out to destroy the Geth is during the Rannoch mission.

Now you're just factually incorrect.

We've been through this very argument before. Spin it all you'd like; fact is, you went in with the knowledge that the Crucible wouldn't discriminate should you choose destroy. Therefore, you willfully and deliberately chose to exterminate Geth alongside the Reapers because they were synthetic.

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.