1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

wantedman dan wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

What do you mean?

The explanation was altered by adding the newness in another aspect.

What?

Leviathan contradicted no preexisting content.

Therefore, not a retcon.

[AlanC9]

Lord Aesir wrote...

All of the choices require Shepard to make a decision regarding the fate of the galaxy and every individual in it without consulting them.  Frankly, I don't understand why everyone thinks synthesis is unique in this regard.

Well, the Synthesis decision alters people in a way that Control and Destroy don't. And while Refuse does alter them too -- to being dead -- it doesn't do so instantaneously. Anyway, that's not Shepard's own doing, even though it is his responsibility.

Note that the typical role of the " hero" is to restore some imagined pre-existing order, rather than to force change on the world. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 octobre 2012 - 04:08 .

[wantedman dan]

Lord Aesir wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

What do you mean?

The explanation was altered by adding the newness in another aspect.

What?

Leviathan contradicted no preexisting content.

Therefore, not a retcon.

TVTropes.org disagrees.

TVTropes.org wrote...

[A retcon surves the purpose of] reframing past events to serve a current plot need. When the inserted events work with what was previously stated, it's a Revision; when they outright replace it, it's a Rewrite.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 10 octobre 2012 - 06:32 .

[Heimdall]

[quote]Fandango9641 wrote...

Dude, there exists no organics post synthesis, much less Asari and Krogan. As for your second point, I despair at the mindet of someone so aversive and cruel that they cant even acknowlede the basic inalienable rights of others. To confirm, no one has the moral authority to enjoin synthesis on any individual without their permission....to say nothing of an entire galaxy!

Do try to let that little nugget sink in before posting again will you?[/quote]I seem to see Krogan and Asari in the ending.  They remain.  As does all their culture, knowledge and History.  As do their minds and physical bodies.  By what evidence to do they cease to exist?  Because they no longer fit into the academic definition of organic?

I acknowledge those rights.  You just refuse to acknowledge that every single one of the ending choices violates those rights.  I just chose the result in which the violation of those rights would not kill anyone or force them to live under a dictator.[/quote]

[Heimdall]

wantedman dan wrote...


TVTropes.org disagrees.

TVTropes.org wrote...

Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. When the inserted events work with what was previously stated, it's a Revision; when they outright replace it, it's a Rewrite.

Neither of those describe what Leviathan does.

It fills in a completely blank area of the lore.  No previously alluded to events have been reframed, only given greater detail.  Nothing has been replaced either.

[wantedman dan]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Neither of those describe what Leviathan does.

It fills in a completely blank area of the lore.  No previously alluded to events have been reframed, only given greater detail.  Nothing has been replaced either.

Except revising the lore to make it clearer. You said it yourself. It reframes the events described by the Catalyst in the initial endings.

Hotlinked is the Dictionary.com reference to "revise." I suggest you investigate. 

This thread is chocked full of people ignoring facts to make their own purposes seem legitimate; I shouldn't be surprised you'd be willing to resort to such.

[Heimdall]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

All of the choices require Shepard to make a decision regarding the fate of the galaxy and every individual in it without consulting them.  Frankly, I don't understand why everyone thinks synthesis is unique in this regard.

Well, the Synthesis decision alters people in a way that Control and Destroy don't. And while Refuse does alter them too -- to being dead -- it doesn't do so instantaneously. Anyway, that's not Shepard's own doing, even though it is his responsibility.

Note that the typical role of the " hero" is to restore some imagined pre-existing order, rather than to force change on the world. 

I get that.  But it is still Shepard deciding the fate of the galaxy.  Shepard has been entrusted with the fate of the galaxy by everyone.  Bioware has been rather heavy handed with their portrayal of Shepard as the "Avatar of the Cycle" and people are nuts if they think they can claim theirs no issue of violating personal choice exists in the other endings.

Refuse is just silly.

[Heimdall]

wantedman dan wrote...

Except revising the lore to make it clearer. You said it yourself. It reframes the events described by the Catalyst in the initial endings.

Hotlinked is the Dictionary.com reference to "revise." I suggest you investigate. 

This thread is chocked full of people ignoring facts to make their own purposes seem legitimate; I shouldn't be surprised you'd be willing to resort to such.

. Revising implies a change, that something has been altered.  I went to your link.  If you had read the definition you would would know.  The events alluded to by the Catalyst are not changed by Leviathan.  Nothing has been changed.  They provide detail to an event that has never been portrayed.

I assume that you are trying to use this definition:

2. To alter something already written or printed, to provide corrections, improve, or update.

this doesn't work.  You would have to have the events described by the Catalyst already portrayed for this to be true.  Portraying a previously only alluded to event is not a revision.  There is no correction, update or improvement because there was nothing save to or three references in the Catalyst's speech beforehand.

[BatmanTurian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

It's a disgusting proposition defended by disgusting people. Get well soon.

It's a game with a sh**ty ending that railroads people into 4 sh**ty choices. Stop judging people for their choices. That's all this thread as been. You are disgusting for passing judgement on people for choices in a video game and it shows you can't separate reality from fantasy.

[wantedman dan]

I give up trying to make sense to you people.

[BatmanTurian]

Fandango9641 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

It's a disgusting proposition defended by disgusting people. Get well soon.

It's a game with a sh**ty ending that railroads people into 4 sh**ty choices. Stop judging people for their choices. That's all this thread as been. You are disgusting for passing judgement on people for choices in a video game and it shows you can't separate reality from fantasy.

Oh shush, I've less problems with the game itself than I have with those championing the moral virtue of Synthesis, Control and Destroy. You see, like you, I know better.

Fine, but what you're saying here, and your previous words don't synch up exactly.

[Obadiah]

Maxster_ wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
...
"necessity" is a very interesting thing.
You order a massive MIRV artillery strike at town, where is some enemy presense, knowing that this artillery strike is going to level the city with all it's inhabitants; to lesser losses of your divison. Is this a necessity?

There is a military principle that covers that.

It covers nothing. You still have to prove that in court, and given something like attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to
the anticipated military advantage.
That's no court, we need to describe horrific actions that Catalyst forced Shepard to do. So term "warcrime" fits well enough, it's not that Shepard's dead body ever going to court.

The point is that there are other considerations besides the loss of life when determining a war crime, and it is up to us to act as we see fit.

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
War crimes aren't justifiable by necessity. That is why they are war crimes. Hence the arguments that Destroy is Genocide are pure hyperbole, and that is the semantic game.

Obadiah wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...
...
"necessity" is a very interesting thing.
You order a massive MIRV artillery strike at town, where is some enemy presense, knowing that this artillery strike is going to level the city with all it's inhabitants; to lesser losses of your divison. Is this a necessity?

There is a military principle that covers that.

This is absurd.  You are quoting a specific military doctrine that is intended to rationalise and justify the extreme application of force in war time.  That does not alter the actions themselves from being what they are, merely the way in which they are to be prosecuted.  They are not 'crimes' in this context because they will not be punished.  That does not fundamentally alter what those original actions were.  Carpet bombing a village of people and calling it justified by 'military principle' does not make those people any less dead - it just means the people who ordered the strike are not to be convicted of anything.  The victims have still been killed, and their deaths deserve respect.

In the same sense, you cannot change the definition of the word genocide (the targetted extermination of a race) by retroactively arguing that it was necessary to stop a greater evil.  The meaning of the term doesn't work that way.  The Geth have still been the victims of genocide; and by you intentionally obfuscating the act of genocide with the crime of genocide, you are belittling and ignoring their actual loss.

As I have stated before, if you want to call it 'justified' Genocide, that is your (rather unnerving) right - the game certainly invites you to think in such a manner - but to call the choice to wholesale exterminate a race anything but its correct definition is a grossly inappropriate mutilation of language.

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
Clearly the crime we are discussing is one in some absolute sense, and not one prosecuted in a court of law. I am simply arguing the terms under which that crime should be defined.

I don't have to resort to a dictionary or treaty definition of genocide as a war crime since you all seem to have stipulated that is your purpose in using the word.

If you think there is such a thing as justifiable genocide I invite you to cite some source that describes it.

Edit: Also, and perhaps I should have been clearer in my respose, the principle is an answer to Master_'s question, not a defense of the actions in his scenario.

Modifié par Obadiah, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:39 .

[T-Raks]

Guys, it gets ridiculous here with definition of genocide and what not. If you want to go by definition, in reality, EDI and the Geth are simply not alive, they are no race, they are artificial intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not alive -> no genocide. \\thread

[AlanC9]

Lord Aesir wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...


TVTropes.org disagrees.

TVTropes.org wrote...

Reframing past events to serve a current plot need. When the inserted events work with what was previously stated, it's a Revision; when they outright replace it, it's a Rewrite.

Neither of those describe what Leviathan does.

It fills in a completely blank area of the lore.  No previously alluded to events have been reframed, only given greater detail.  Nothing has been replaced either.

There's a way in whch dan could be right. For anyone who had an interpretation of ME3 before Leviathan that had to be changed after Leviathan, it's a retcon. Similar to how the EC is a retcon to people who thought novas destroyed every system with a relay in the original ending, but it isn't a retcon to anyone who figured out that wasn't what had happened in the first place.

But I'm not sure what Leviathan actually does along those lines.

[AlanC9]

T-Raks wrote...

Guys, it gets ridiculous here with definition of genocide and what not. If you want to go by definition, in reality, EDI and the Geth are simply not alive, they are no race, they are artificial intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Problem is, you get there by using a worthless definition of "life."

[T-Raks]

AlanC9 wrote...

T-Raks wrote...

Guys, it gets ridiculous here with definition of genocide and what not. If you want to go by definition, in reality, EDI and the Geth are simply not alive, they are no race, they are artificial intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Problem is, you get there by using a worthless definition of "life."

Lol. I didn't start with definitions and that is not a worthless definition of alive, but common sense and pretty obvious.

[MegaSovereign]

The geth died on Rannoch in my initial playthrough.

Suck on that Destroy haters.

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

[wantedman dan]

AlanC9 wrote...

There's a way in whch dan could be right. For anyone who had an interpretation of ME3 before Leviathan that had to be changed after Leviathan, it's a retcon. Similar to how the EC is a retcon to people who thought novas destroyed every system with a relay in the original ending, but it isn't a retcon to anyone who figured out that wasn't what had happened in the first place.

But I'm not sure what Leviathan actually does along those lines.

The point I'm making is that the story, overall, was retroactively revised to include the story of the Leviathans.