1304 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...
Genocide is part of the price of Destroy. You may not want to do it; you may be disgusted by it; but it is the fee you have to pay to get this ending. Just like people who pick Synthesis have to be aware that they are mutating people against their will (presumably for a greater good); just like the people who pick Control have to accept the arrogance of Shepard thinking she can do what no other character ever before has been able to do.  People who picked Destroy have to accept that genocide is part of the bargain.  Because it is.

While I strongly agree with this part, I must disagree with this...

You weighed up the value of certain forms of life and picked one race over another. You had other options but you picked genocide. And hiding behind excuses only belittles the price that you were meant to be paying for your 'bittersweet' ending.

...... because it doesn't necessarily follow. If Shepard believes that Control is an unacceptable risk, and Synthesis is something he has no right to do, then he isn't picking one race over another. He's picking destruction of one race over unacceptable consequences for all races.

[AlanC9]

But that isn't a challenge to the essential point. Yes, Destroy = Genocide.

Even if the geth are already dead, all other AIs in the galaxy should count for that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

masster blaster wrote...

No. We all were thinking Kill the Reapers, until the brat said " Ya your going to die, I am going to die, and the Synthetics are going to die if you pick Destroy.

Actually since ME1 I've been looking for a way to make the Reapers allies, so no not everyone thought that.

[SpamBot2000]

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

[Peranor]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

Yepp, that's the legacy of Mass Effect. Light hearted and cheerful discussions about fun topics like:

• Genocide and how to justify it
  
• Galactic DNA Rape, is it good for your children?
  
• The fine benefits of a galactic police state

No wonder the forum is in the state it is. I wonder what kind of speculations and dusicussions Bioware had in mind when they barfed up the ending(s)

Modifié par anorling, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:23 .

[Maxster_]

Rip504 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

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.

Is collaterial damage, including destruction of entire race, is normal, because it is not intended? Especially when Shepard perfectly knew, what he is doing, - killing synthetics to kill reapers.
When you are ordering massive MIRV artillery strike(which level entire city and kill most inhabitants) to an populated city, to crush defended position - it is normal, because you just wanted to destroy enemy without losses to your own division?

[Maxster_]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

It's collateral genocide in a struggle against Robo-Cthulhu...
It's a horrible, terrifying, disgusting sacrifice...

But a necessary sacrifice, the scale and urgency of the reaper threat demands that it be made.  Look I was not happy about having to sacrifice the geth one bit but destroying the reapers  and saving the galaxy and ending the billion year nightmare is more important than the fate of any single species, whether the species be organic or synthetic.  I would have made the same decision even if it meant that humanity would be sacrificed.

(this is not meant to criticise your decision or standing)


to bring this to a philosophical level:

what does this kind of victory stand for, if you do not only sacrafice innocent allys, but also your own beliefs and foundations?

by making such a decision, you are loosing, what differes you from the reaper. that is a deep problem. you leave a certain part of your humanity behind, in order to save it.

what a tragic irony.

It could be great story on it's own. If it would be not badly written and not an sequel to a heroic saga.

[Maxster_]

anorling wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

Yepp, that's the legacy of Mass Effect. Light hearted and cheerful discussions about fun topics like:

• Genocide and how to justify it
  
• Galactic DNA Rape, is it good for your children?
  
• The fine benefits of a galactic police state

No wonder the forum is in the state it is. I wonder what kind of speculations and dusicussions Bioware had in mind when they barfed up the ending(s)

Well, they got their speculations

[Maxster_]

Lord Aesir wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

The target was the reapers, the geth were collateral damage. Yes Shepard knew they would go down when the catalyst told him that destroy would destroy all synthetics but it was the only way to do destroy the reapers. Every species that was fighting on earth and in the skies over earth was commited to do what it takes to destroy the reapers, including the geth.  You can call it genocide if you want but to me it was justified considering the circumstances.

If it were humans?  What would you do then?

Yes I would, I think I even mentioned in this thread that I would without hesitation.  To me ending the billion year nightmare that has been the reapers is more important than the fate of any single species, doesn't matter if that species is synthetic, organic, or even my own species.  There is an entire galaxy at stake here.

Your ruthless, I get it.

Actualy most of my Shepards are paragon and I play leaning heavily towards paragon decisions.  It's just the reality of the reaper threat makes some things unavoidable.

Perfectly avoidable, you had two other alternatives. (Refuse doesn't count)

But I respect your opinion

Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

[Maxster_]

drayfish wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well.... yes, you can be emo about it or realize the positives, that you saved billions or trillions of people and the countless others who are not yet born, and that you have the gratitude of all of those people.

I have rarely seen such ugly semantic gymnastics as I am seeing in some of the posts on this thread...

'Well we didn't build the Crucible, we only used it...' (even though there were other options available)

'Hey, the Geth were just collateral damage, like leaving a dog behind on a car ride, or losing someone in a hurricane...' (except that you did not stir the hurricane into being, and did not knowingly target the man and every other member of his race for destruction)

'It's like a nuke going off in a country, and you don't know what races are in there...' (except that you know precisely who is targeted here, and it is in no way random: it is a race of beings, and you have other options)

'And, you know, the Geth weren't really, like alive anyway, they're like i-Pods...' (except for all those times they revealed themselves to be autonomous, self-aware beings, and themselves stated that they were alive ...unlike your i-Pod)

'And they brought it on themselves by uploading Reaper code - I mean, what were they thinking?' (because they clearly asked to be massacred by seeking individuality, and trying to be more human)

'And what if the Geth aren't dead anyway...' (even though it is clearly stated they are, we do not see them again after the blast, and, oh yeah, you are apparently happy enough to believe everything else that the Catalyst says)

'Hey, it's all just fiction anyway; they're just pixels and game code...' (so then why does it matter to you what their deaths are called?)

I find this all extraordinarily shocking, and frankly rather cowardly - particularly repeatedly calling anyone who wants to show the dead the respect they deserve by acknowledging their slaughter appropriately an 'emo'. ...I mean, seriously.

Genocide is part of the price of Destroy. You may not want to do it; you may be disgusted by it; but it is the fee you have to pay to get this ending. Just like people who pick Synthesis have to be aware that they are mutating people against their will (presumably for a greater good); just like the people who pick Control have to accept the arrogance of Shepard thinking she can do what no other character ever before has been able to do.  People who picked Destroy have to accept that genocide is part of the bargain.  Because it is.

It's genocide.

Your issue is with Bioware - not the English language.

You weighed up the value of certain forms of life and picked one race over another. You had other options but you picked genocide. And hiding behind excuses only belittles the price that you were meant to be paying for your 'bittersweet' ending.

Again: your issue is with Bioware and the farcical philosophical 'debate' they chose to ham-fistedly Frankenstein's monster into their narrative.

They are the ones who made Shepard a war-criminal for the 'greater good'.

Shepard stops Saren. And then Shepard becomes next Saren. But there is no next Shepard to stop next Saren.

I have rarely seen such ugly semantic gymnastics as I am seeing in some of the posts on this thread...

Yeah, didn't liked that too.
If you are committing warcrime, at least be honest about it.

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:52 .

[Peranor]

Maxster_ wrote...

anorling wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

Yepp, that's the legacy of Mass Effect. Light hearted and cheerful discussions about fun topics like:

• Genocide and how to justify it
  
  
• Galactic DNA Rape, is it good for your children?
  
  
• The fine benefits of a galactic police state

No wonder the forum is in the state it is. I wonder what kind of speculations and dusicussions Bioware had in mind when they barfed up the ending(s)

Well, they got their speculations

They sure did 
Well played Bioware, well played.

[Calamity]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Are atheists robots?

I thought Arial is a robot?

Modifié par Calamity, 09 octobre 2012 - 12:26 .

[Xilizhra]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

People already did that back in ME1 with the rachni queen.

[Heimdall]

Maxster_ wrote...
Nah, they are much worse than genocide. Genocide is at least honest.

I'd ague the point but I'm tired.  I will say that your honest choice is the only one that requires you kill friends that trust you to help everyone including them survive the Reapers.

I think all three choices have equal drawbacks, at any rate.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 09 octobre 2012 - 12:56 .

[ghost9191]

wouldn't be the first time shep had to sacrifice allies to stop the reapers but at least this way it will be the last for sure, at least to stop the reapers anyways

[Heimdall]

ghost9191 wrote...

wouldn't be the first time shep had to sacrifice allies to stop the reapers but at least this way it will be the last for sure, at least to stop the reapers anyways

And if its unnecessary?

[Shaigunjoe]

Of course it isn't genocide, there were no genes to cide!

If it happened post synthesis.....

[Han Shot First]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

The fanbase doesn't need to come up with new terminology when the Destroy ending doesn't meet the existing legal definition for genocide. Those who have been using the term in the thread are either intentionally misusing it, or fail to understand what it means.

Destroy, like Control, Synthesis and Refuse, has some horrifying consequences....but those consequences aren't genocide.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 01:20 .

[Heimdall]

Han Shot First wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

The fanbase doesn't need to come up with new terminology when the Destroy ending doesn't meet the existing legal definition for genocide. Those who have been using the term in the thread are either intentionally misusing it, or fail to understand what it means.

Destroy, like Control, Synthesis and Refuse, has some horrifying consequences....but those consequences aren't genocide.

That still doesn't stop people from trying to say what they did wasn't so bad just because it doesn't meet the technical definition.

[Obadiah]

drayfish wrote...
...
'It's like a nuke going off in a country, and you don't know what races are in there...' (except that you know precisely who is targeted here, and it is in no way random: it is a race of beings, and you have other options)
...
It's genocide.

Your issue is with Bioware - not the English language.
...

I'd say that in today's connected world a nuclear weapon probably couldn't be fired without knowing the demographics in the blast radius. The Crucuible is a weapon of mass destruction, with the same issues that come with it.

My issue in this thread isn't with Bioware or the English language, it is the the redefinition of the word "genocide" for politcal and argumentative use.

Its use is an attempt to force or impose a judgement of Mass Effect 3's ending, and shut down discussion about it. I find it tantamount to name calling - that's not going to stop anyone from doing it.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I wish BioWare would read this thread. They would no doubt be very proud of the spirited effort of the community to come up with new phrases to explain away genocide. Who knows, maybe one day in The Hague some poor misunderstood Leader will quote these very words inspired by Mass Effect 3 and be vindicated.

The fanbase doesn't need to come up with new terminology when the Destroy ending doesn't meet the existing legal definition for genocide. Those who have been using the term in the thread are either intentionally misusing it, or fail to understand what it means.

Destroy, like Control, Synthesis and Refuse, has some horrifying consequences....but those consequences aren't genocide.

Taken from PreventGenocide.org:

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

Modifié par wantedman dan, 09 octobre 2012 - 01:33 .

[ghost9191]

Lord Aesir wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

wouldn't be the first time shep had to sacrifice allies to stop the reapers but at least this way it will be the last for sure, at least to stop the reapers anyways

And if its unnecessary?

late response, but the other choices are just as bad, some might say synthesis does more dmg then destroy.

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...


You have the intent to destroy, in whole, a national, ethnical, racial group of intelligent, sapient beings simply because they were in your way. You a) kill members of the group or c) deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole.  

That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happens. Shepard does not set out to destroy the Geth simply because they were in his way. Shepard does set out to destroy the Reapers, and in the process of doing so the Geth end up being killed as collateral damage. You are giving Shepard hostile motivations towards the Geth that simply aren't there. The destruction of the Geth is an unintended consequence of firing the Crucible, and as such it does not meet the legal definition for genocide.

Intent is important.

[Xilizhra]

Killing all of the Reapers is also genocide, so the geth thing is almost moot. However, as the Crucible could be fired in other ways, the slaughter of the geth could be prevented, but Shepard would choose not to, killing them all due to a perceived threat. Which has been the motivation of many other genocides.

[Heimdall]

ghost9191 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

ghost9191 wrote...

wouldn't be the first time shep had to sacrifice allies to stop the reapers but at least this way it will be the last for sure, at least to stop the reapers anyways

And if its unnecessary?

late response, but the other choices are just as bad, some might say synthesis does more dmg then destroy.

All the choices have drawbacks, in that I agree.