1304 réponses à ce sujet

[simonrana]

So it's not genocide as long as the player can rationalise it away to themself - even though they had other choices that would have avoided such slaughter?

Ah, Bioware.  Creating a scenario in which players can commit soul-shrivelling horror and gladly pardon themselves. 

So arty.

The trouble is (for me at least) that the alternatives are even worse. Control is a big ominous unknown - leaving the Reapers in the galaxy to kept under check by an AI that apparently emulates Shepard in some way we don't fully understand with consequences we can't even begin to predict. For me what we were battling for all along was to free the galaxy of the Reaper threat. Destroy guarantees that, control does not - it could potentially end up even more horrifically in the long run. Wiping out the geth is horrible, but it's a cost that is sadly worth paying to end the Reaper threat.

And I pretend that the synthesis option isn't even there because it's just too idiotic and has no place being in the
game.

But on topic destroy is arguably genocide. It's worth bearing in mind though that in our own human history genocides have always been a bigotry-driven, protracted and nasty business, so by comparison this is the nicest genocide ever!

Modifié par simonrana, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:39 .

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

A legacy of trillions more preventable deaths? How is that future brighter? Especially since the cycle that did win actually used the Crucible, so all you did was delay things with blood.

Since when was Twittercanon, canon?

Since when is anything canon canon?

[Han Shot First]

Fandango9641 wrote...

And what of the link I posted to the legal definitions that confirm that destroy is genocide Han? Ready to concede, or are you not quite done chatting fart?

It does no such thing however.

The intent is important in defining whether or not genocide has been committed, and Shepard simply doesn't set out to destroy the Geth. They aren't destroyed for example because Shepard has decided that all Synthetic life must be eradicated. There is no genocidal intent on the part of Shepard.

It isn't genocide for the same reason that the deaths of the Batarians in the Bahak system aren't genocide. (assuming that Shepard tried to warn them)

It is a horrifying example of collateral damage or friendly fire, but it isn't genocide.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:39 .

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

A legacy of trillions more preventable deaths? How is that future brighter? Especially since the cycle that did win actually used the Crucible, so all you did was delay things with blood.

Since when was Twittercanon, canon?

Since when is anything canon canon?

Thank you for making my point.

[Han Shot First]

Some things on Twitter are canon. It's just a lower level of canon than in-game canon.

So long as something posted on social media isn't contradicted by the game, it is canon. Emily Wong for example, is canonically dead.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:41 .

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

A legacy of trillions more preventable deaths? How is that future brighter? Especially since the cycle that did win actually used the Crucible, so all you did was delay things with blood.

Since when was Twittercanon, canon?

Since when is anything canon canon?

Thank you for making my point.

Your point is that you seem to want to ignore canon to make your pointless loss seem like less of one.

[Xilizhra]

OT I know but reject is the only morally conscionable choice on offer for sure. That it's a choice that results in the death of everything we fought to protect across 3 games is an indication of how badly Mac and Casey wanted to give those who rejected their original 3 colour conclusion the finger, nothing more. In any case, reject is the ony choice that respects the basic, inalienable rights of all life in the galaxy.

The right I respect most is the right to life, and that's the one I shall preserve above all else.

[Han Shot First]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

And what of the link I posted to the legal definitions that confirm that destroy is genocide Han? Ready to concede, or are you not quite done chatting fart?

It does no such thing however.

The intent is important in defining whether or not genocide has been committed, and Shepard simply doesn't set out to destroy the Geth. They aren't destroyed for example because Shepard has decided that all Synthetic life must be eradicated. There is no genocidal intent on the part of Shepard.

It isn't genocide for the same reason that the deaths of the Batarians in the Bahak system aren't genocide. (assuming that Shepard tried to warn them)

It is a horrifying example of collateral damage or friendly fire, but it isn't genocide.

No, now you're being dishonest. Denying the right of a group or groups to exist is genocide. The sacraficing of the Geth is an explict part of the proposition on offer. If Shep decides to shoot the tube, it's genocide.

Shepard shoots the tube however to destroy the Reapers, not the Geth. The Geth are only destroyed in collateral damage.

As an example, prior to the EC it was heavily implied that the Crucible not only destroyed the Geth but also destroyed the relays and fried all forms of advanced technology. The Stargazer scene implied a galactic dark age where civilizations were no longer space faring. Was it Shepard's intent to destroy all technology and cause the collapse of galactic civilization? Of course not. That was an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers, and an example of collateral damage.

The same holds true for the Geth.

[JPR1964]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you can point to me one situation that is as black and white as that ethic, I will stop laughing at the hopeless utilitarianism you use to justify your abominiation of a decision.

A bit hard to laugh when you and the entire galaxy have died because of your lack of a choice. Your deontology was apparently not enough to save the galaxy; I'm quite certain those who yet live in mine are glad that I did something.

Entire Galaxy? Since when? How do you know that when you encounter Starbrat? Because IT said it? How a parangon Sheppard is going to believe a mass murder genocidal egocentrical maniac AI?

You certainly don't know anything about roleplaying : I cannot blame you, I'm just blaming again BW for their poor ending game...

JPR out!

[GreyLycanTrope]

Xilizhra wrote...
Your point is that you seem to want to ignore canon to make your pointless loss seem like less of one.

The point is if it's not in game it doesn't have to be canon, endings are open to interpretation, I choose to believe the crucible was not used and the Reapers were defeated conventionally since the next cycle prepared for the Reapers while our fleet soften them up before hand, nothing stated ingame contradict this assumption, tweets from the PR department can ****** off.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:58 .

[JPR1964]

Han Shot First wrote...

Shepard shoots the tube however to destroy the Reapers, not the Geth. The Geth are only destroyed in collateral damage.

As an example, prior to the EC it was heavily implied that the Crucible not only destroyed the Geth but also destroyed the relays and fried all forms of advanced technology. The Stargazer scene implied a galactic dark age where civilizations were no longer space faring. Was it Shepard's intent to destroy all technology and cause the collapse of galactic civilization? Of course not. That was an unintended consequence of destroying the Reapers, and an example of collateral damage.

The same holds true for the Geth.

No, Sheppard knows that he's going to kill the Geth, EDI and all Reapers assimilated techs... It's Genocide : as you're believing Starbrat until this point, you cannot have that as an excuse...

Sheppard already done that at a smaller level in arrival : cruel decision... 

JPR out!

Modifié par JPR1964, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:01 .

[JPR1964]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Your point is that you seem to want to ignore canon to make your pointless loss seem like less of one.

The point is if it's not in game it doesn't have to be canon, endings are open to interpretation, I choose to believe the crucible was not used and the Reapers were defeated conventionally since the next cycle prepared for the Reapers while our fleet soften them up before hand, nothing stated ingame contradict this assumption, tweets from the PR department can ****** off.

I'm with you on this one...

I don't see any parangon Sheppard I roleplay believing anything from Starbrat!

JPR out!

[Han Shot First]

Fandango9641 wrote...



OT I know but reject is the only morally conscionable choice on offer for sure. That it's a choice that results in the death of everything we fought to protect across 3 games is an indication of how badly Mac and Casey wanted to give those who rejected their original 3 colour conclusion the finger, nothing more. In any case, reject is the ony choice that respects the basic, inalienable rights of all life in the galaxy.

And destroy is genocide right Han?

If Destroy is genocide, Reject is an even greater example of one. Trillions more die as a fesult of Refuse than die in Destroy.

For the record I don't believe that either is an example of genocide, just pointing out the absurdity of Refusers claiming that the collateral damage of Destroy is genocide, whereas the much greater collateral damage of Refuse is not.

Also, I'm not sure how choosing to allow the Reapers to annihilate trillions of lives and cause the mass extinction of every space faring species in the galaxy, is an example of respecting the 'inalienable rights of all life in the galaxy.' Refusers condemn every space faring civilization to destruction at the 'hands' of the Reapers, and every sapient being from a space faring civilization to death. The trail of death and destruction as a result of Refuse far exceeeds that of Destroy.

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

That makes him complicit, if only in his complete and utter stupidity. I'm sorry that you chose to turn the protagonist into an incompetent leader, and I'm sorry that you chose the game. Try winning next time. It is much more satisfying.

This, however, is a tremendous leap in logic worthy of an olympic gold medal. I'm eager to see how you spin this.

There isn't any spin involved. Refuse is cut and dry.

Your chose to lose the game. Your Shepard delivered a flawless victory to the Reapers, resulting in the destruction of every sapient space faring civilization in the galaxy, including humanity. Refuse is the Epic Fail ending.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:10 .

[Han Shot First]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Shepard shoots the tube however to destroy the Reapers, not the Geth. The Geth are only destroyed in collateral damage.

What point responding to such a ridiculous statement when all one really need do is underline it!

It is collateral damage and the destruction of the Reapers was a military necessity.

As such, the destruction of the Geth does not meet the legal definition for genocide.


Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL.

*snip*

There are three constraints upon the free exercise of military necessity. First, any attack must be intended and tend toward the military defeat of the enemy; attacks not so intended cannot be justified by military necessity because they would have no military purpose. Second, even an attack aimed at the military weakening of the enemy must not cause harm to civilians or civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Third, military necessity cannot justify violation of the other rules of IHL.

Military Necessity


I'd say that destroying the Reapers (an entity that has annihilated every space faring civilization for eons and is currently engaged in trying to annihilate every current space faring civilization in existence, including humanity) even if it comes at the cost of the destruction of the Geth, consititutes military necessity.

The Geth by the way even if they are intentionally targeted, and they aren't in this instance...don't have civilians. Every Geth is a combatant. International Humanitarian Laws that govern the treatment of civilians in conflicts would not apply to a faction where every one of them is a combatant. As such blowing up a space station full of Geth (as Shepard potentially did) is no more an act of genocide than killing thousands of enemy combatants in aerial bombing.

The destruction of the Reapers isn't an act of genocide either, for similar reasons. Every one of them is a combatant actively engaged in annihilating the galaxy. As such they are legitimate targets for destruction.

You're on your arse Han, destroy literally makes Shep an active participant in genocide. I know you get it, why on earth won't you acknowledge it?

Because you are dead wrong, and so is Refuse.

Destroy saves the galaxy, Refuse leaves it devoid of sapient life.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:42 .

[BatmanTurian]

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'.

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs. They actually don't even exist. I obviously would not make this choice in real life, because I'll probably never have to wipe out dogs and my best friend to kill a race of omnicidal, parasitic cyborgs. Would I make that choice in a game because it railroads me into it? Yes. If you can't realize that this is all fiction, you need to learn to separate reality and fantasy. Condemning others for an action taken in a role-playing game is like trying  FPS enthusiasts in a court of law for all the thousands or millions of npc and players they killed while they were playing video games.

This whole argument is overly emotional nonsense for this very reason, hence my reasons for saying Emo. Being emo is being overly-sensitive and full of angst. This definition fits the melodrama going on in this thread. None of this stuff is real. It didn't actually happen. I made a choice and I'm fine with it. You're not so you made another. I disagree with your choice but I'm not going to start calling you names for it. Seriously, it's just fiction and pixels. I feel like I'm the only sane person left on BSN here.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[Maxster_]

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs.

And why do you care genocide that or not then? Not that another group of pixels(Shepard) is ever going to rl court, yes?

Modifié par Maxster_, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:28 .

[BatmanTurian]

Maxster_ wrote...

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs.

And why do you care genocide that or not then? Not that another group of pixels(Shepard) is ever going to rl court, yes?

I don't actually care what it's called. That was never my argument. My argument is that they can be rebuilt anyway, so their species is not extinct.

[Maxster_]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs.

And why do you care genocide that or not then? Not that another group of pixels(Shepard) is ever going to rl court, yes?

I don't actually care what it's called. That was never my argument. My argument is that they can be rebuilt anyway, so their species is not extinct.

Your argument is, because of them being characters in a game, this entire discussion is irrelevant.
So, what are you doing on game company forum discussing something that not even exists anyway?

[BatmanTurian]

Maxster_ wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs.

And why do you care genocide that or not then? Not that another group of pixels(Shepard) is ever going to rl court, yes?

I don't actually care what it's called. That was never my argument. My argument is that they can be rebuilt anyway, so their species is not extinct.

Your argument is, because of them being characters in a game, this entire discussion is irrelevant.
So, what are you doing on game company forum discussing something that not even exists anyway?

The condemning of other players is irrelevant. Again, just as irrelevant for condeming FPS enthusiasts for the thousands or millions of npcs and players they killed. It's illogical moralizing about killing pixels in a game and characters in a story. It didn't actually happen. I'm asking people to wake up to reality.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:45 .

[cyrexwingblade]

Genocide having an element of intent is really not the point. If you believe the Geth are alive, and you believe it is still worth it for them to die so that the Reapers are wiped out, the double-genocide is still genocide... it's just necessary. If you want to argue that path. Debating what is or isn't genocide is just semantics for self-comfort. I say own the decision. "Yes, I killed them all. To save the rest of you. If you'd been standing there, it'd've been your call."

Me? I can't justify wiping out the Geth/Edi, so I don't choose Destroy.

[Restrider]

Why do we even discuss this?
The choice of Destroy has been done in a utilitarian fashion, if you consider that the Guardian cannot be trusted and Control/Synthesis are no options (TIM & Saren tried the same *cough*.
If you come to the conclusion that Destroy is the best (or at least less horrible) choice then roll with it. Shepard did not go to the chamber with the intention to exterminate all synthetics, but to exterminate/stop the Reapers (and this is not a genocide towards the Reapers, since it is a defensive action). Thus, it is no genocide.
Synthesis on the other hand would qualify for galactic genocide on the premise that altering everyone's mind equals killing them (to paraphrase Samara and Jack).
Control is uncertain and could easily go wrong terribly and leave us where we were before setting off the Crucible.

Btw: We are not 100% sure that the Geth are gone. The Guardian is very enigmatic when he says "There will be losses, but not more than you've already lost."