Dr_Extrem wrote...
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.
are we more than our thoughts?
Modifié par ghost9191, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:03 .
dreman9999 wrote...
If Shepard could live with the judgement ,Why they an issue with the end being just that..shepard having to have his/her honor be scratched?Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse
it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy
sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.
That the arguement that our fom effects our thinking. A change of form effects how wething and what wethink about but we are the same person.Dr_Extrem wrote...
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.
are we more than our thoughts?
Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
You do know how maluble emotions are? We can cut emotions out of our selves and chemically induse other emotions.
An AI can develop it own emotions as seen with EDI. It's a cse of it working differently then organics, not a case Ai's don't have it at all.
And the Shepard ai that has a new concept of time will not go crazy with imotality. As Javik said.Machines see tiem as an illusion.
exactly .. but the ai does not have a brain where a biochemical reaction can occur. edi stated, that she says things like "i like it" (despite the fact that does not like it. it is only gives her positive feedback), to the crewmembers, to make them feel comfortable. edi simulates emotions, based on her core programming - which she can alter.
ghost9191 wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse
it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy
sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.
which is what i am saying,
my shep doesn't regret the decision, but the sacrifice. but it had to be done to save the many . same as he said in ME2 ., "will gladly stand trial once my mission is done". or something like that.control and synthesis is easy, shep dies though lol
dreman9999 wrote...
That the arguement that our fom effects our thinking. A change of form effects how wething and what wethink about but we are the same person.Dr_Extrem wrote...
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.
are we more than our thoughts?
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
You saying it wrong for a game to bring the issues of reality into it. It not like ME1 and 2 did not have morally conflicting questions. It just the question in ME3 is very extreme.Dr_Extrem wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.
Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.
Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.
Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg
Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.
Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2
well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.
why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.
mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.
the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.
no .. but the dose makes the poison.
dreman9999 wrote...
In ME1 you had te choice of letting the council die or letting ships of alliance fleets get killed off.
In ME2, you had to make orders where the wrong one gets people killed, make sure moral is up and your ship is developed enough. And then you had to make a choice to keep a weapon that can help you or destroy it.
As hero, innocent people still died as your actions.
Modifié par iakus, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:21 .
In a different way but not differently. The interpertation whould not change, just the way we process them.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
That the arguement that our fom effects our thinking. A change of form effects how wething and what wethink about but we are the same person.Dr_Extrem wrote...
SeptimusMagistos wrote...
It has his memories and his mind. Ergo, it's him. Just because one of two Shepards died doesn't stop the other from being Shepard.
are we more than our thoughts?
according to that, the essence would think in a different way than shepard did, because its form changed.
the moment our thoughts and the interpretation of them change, we have a different personality.
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
In ME1 you had te choice of letting the council die or letting ships of alliance fleets get killed off.
But Shepard doees not kill the Council. Not does Shepard blow up the ships protecting the Destiny Ascension. There's a difference.In ME2, you had to make orders where the wrong one gets people killed, make sure moral is up and your ship is developed enough. And then you had to make a choice to keep a weapon that can help you or destroy it.
As hero, innocent people still died as your actions.
Yes, and as Shepard, I get do what I can to mitigate those loses.
In EM3, Shepard is alone and helpless before the Catalyst. There is no one to consult. No one to warn, nothing to be done but pick a color. Shepard can't protect anyone, even himself.
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
You saying it wrong for a game to bring the issues of reality into it. It not like ME1 and 2 did not have morally conflicting questions. It just the question in ME3 is very extreme.Dr_Extrem wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.
Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.
Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.
Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg
Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.
Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2
well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.
why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.
mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.
the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.
no .. but the dose makes the poison.
Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse
it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy
sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.
which is what i am saying,
my shep doesn't regret the decision, but the sacrifice. but it had to be done to save the many . same as he said in ME2 ., "will gladly stand trial once my mission is done". or something like that.control and synthesis is easy, shep dies though lol
all 3 ... in fact 4 endings are ethically questionable. but for shepard, it does not matter. shepard gets either desintegrated to become an overlord, dissolved to alter all life or burried under a buzzillion tons of citadel rubble. or watches the galaxy burn while slowly bleeding out.
only a high ems destroy shepard would eventuelly face the consequences - but that will not happen, because the survivors are too busy giving shepard medals. the high ems survivor is the poorest shepard possible. he/she will have to live with the fact, that he/she did something gruesome and nobody may punish him /her for that. this shepard is going to be alone with the memories and maybe the guild that lurks behind every vi he sees.
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf
...Did someone not seE delivery in concept of ME1? Did you not see ME1's ads.
ME3 expation to how it's play is based on how many saves you have with differnt choices.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
You saying it wrong for a game to bring the issues of reality into it. It not like ME1 and 2 did not have morally conflicting questions. It just the question in ME3 is very extreme.Dr_Extrem wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
@HYR 2.0
Javik's quote was: War is atrocity committed in the name of survival.... Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask their ghosts if honor matters.
Er, I might have gotten the order of those two quotes wrong.
Sounds like "The ends justify the means" to me.
Sorry, I play games to play the part of a hero, not a remorseless undead cyborg
Sorry but that is the general nature of war. The problem here is that you think you a glorified hero that can't do no wrong. That does not exsist nor ME point.
Worked out okay in ME1 and ME2
well i am playing video games and i read fiction. the cold reality awaits me in the real world. i dont need more reality dorung my time off.
why do we like fiction and geros?. because throu them, we can can experience the impossible and flee the bleak reality, where we have to work, pay bills and feel pain.
mass effect 3 stirred up emotions, that belong to the real world. mass effect 1 and 2 did just fine.
the fact alone that we have a 14 pages long discussion running about the ethical dubiousness of a video game ending, shows that something in this game went wrong.
no .. but the dose makes the poison.
as a chemical lab technician, i have to discurage such actions. this could go very wrong.
i reacted to the ending with disbelief and even a bit of sorrow. not because of the endings or what happend to shepard, but because of the waste of potential. the gameplay was mediocre, the bossfights (especially kai leng) boring and the overall difficulty level was below the first 2 games. (played all on hardcore in a row and me3 was way easier). in addition, the game was very linear and it had not enough side missions. the presentation however, was better. the normandy felt very alive due to the characters changing positions and had conversations you could listen to.
ghost9191 wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
ghost9191 wrote...
each mass effect game has shepard making choices that are the ends justify the means. that is what javik meant. war is atrocity . you can do what needs to be done. regretting it , with remorse or you can sit there and let it happen . which is refuse
it is not right . war is never right . even paragon shepard had to commit atrocities through out 3 games to save the galaxy
sure - shepard hoped that his/her honor would be unscratched. but shepard was willing to confess and live with the judgement.
which is what i am saying,
my shep doesn't regret the decision, but the sacrifice. but it had to be done to save the many . same as he said in ME2 ., "will gladly stand trial once my mission is done". or something like that.control and synthesis is easy, shep dies though lol
all 3 ... in fact 4 endings are ethically questionable. but for shepard, it does not matter. shepard gets either desintegrated to become an overlord, dissolved to alter all life or burried under a buzzillion tons of citadel rubble. or watches the galaxy burn while slowly bleeding out.
only a high ems destroy shepard would eventuelly face the consequences - but that will not happen, because the survivors are too busy giving shepard medals. the high ems survivor is the poorest shepard possible. he/she will have to live with the fact, that he/she did something gruesome and nobody may punish him /her for that. this shepard is going to be alone with the memories and maybe the guild that lurks behind every vi he sees.
little iffy on that ., i mean i am not callous but i do understand sacrifice and casaulties . the geth , while regrettable , were destroyed in order to save trillions. same as the batarians . it wasn't the first time shep sent crew to their deaths either, the sad fact is that is war,., and no war is won without sacrifices . not saying shep wouldn't be dealing with it but he or she would not be alone .
i mean how many died in the attack on earth, i mean to retake it. no one is coming out of that war without scars,, and there is also the possibility for some that the geth were destroyed over rannoch . so that sacrifice might not have taken place
it is not right. it is wrong. still genocide. but it is not the first time it was done in order to stop the reapers. that and i am not convinced the geth were destroyed but that is beside the point
ppl will see shep as a hero, doubt shep will but no heroes hands are clean.
Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:43 .
dreman9999 wrote...
And the poison comment was just a say. This is a game of hypathetical. It's about seeing how you react.Dr_Extrem wrote...
as a chemical lab technician, i have to discurage such actions. this could go very wrong.
Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:42 .
Obadiah wrote...
Ethics are a set of moral rules that can't be bargained away. They're either adhered to or not. You've previously said that Shepard was justified in making a choice, which means that we players followed ethical rules when making the choice.drayfish wrote...
...
Having said that, however, and having been subjected to your cartoonish misrepresentation, I would love to hear what it is that you get out of the ending.
Truly.
In your opinion my reading of the ending is entirely lacking. That's cool. I can believe that. So what is it about this deal with the galaxy's greatest mass-murderer that reveals anything to you about the nature of humanity? Of genuine sacrifice?
It is great (and rather easy) to say that moral compromise is in the mix there, but what does it actually do? What was the point of forcing the player to confront such a circumstance, and compel them to sell out their beliefs? Again, nothing is simpler than nodding sagely, and burbling that the ending is 'deep' because it forces us to confront troubling moral quandries... But so what? What is the point of it all? What do we learn, and what do we do with that knowledge?
So far I have heard people speak of this as a test of moral relativity (you yourself claimed it was a great test of what we hold most sacred) - but aside from revealing that players can be willing to bargain away their morality to survive, or which atrocity is least appealing, I don't see what that actually says about ethics except that they are fundamentally malleable, and can be ignored if need be for the purposes of whatever 'greater good' is most pressing at any given moment.
I would (genuinely) love to hear you reveal something more than that, rather than petulently deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ...
1) If one considers the ending options as sacrifices, then the message of the ending is that sacrifices can be committed ethically.
2) If one considers the ending options as atrocities, then the message of the ending is that atrocities can be committed ethically.
3) If one considers the ending options as a mixture of sacrifices and atrocities, then the message of the ending is that there is a difference between the two that must be determined, and that atrocities or sacrifices can be committed ethically.
Just on the face of it, I would say that all three of these conclusions are true. I think pretty much everything else you've described (why each action is an atrocity, the deaths of the Geth, player feeling, etc...) is an attempt to make that truth as unpalatable as possible, which doesn't really change the truth at all.
Modifié par drayfish, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:57 .
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf
Many hard choices lie ahead, none of them easy.
What are you willing to Sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force?
Sorry but the issue of moral conflict in ME was the firstthing said about it. Now you're surprize it's there?
And as I said before you missed the the e3 intro intro that explaine that ME 1 was about conflicting choices and the ad's of ME1 that advertized that.Dr_Extrem wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
And the poison comment was just a say. This is a game of hypathetical. It's about seeing how you react.Dr_Extrem wrote...
as a chemical lab technician, i have to discurage such actions. this could go very wrong.
"that was a joke"
as an other user already stated .. this is not a voight-kampff test - its a game.
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf
Many hard choices lie ahead, none of them easy.
What are you willing to Sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force?
Sorry but the issue of moral conflict in ME was the firstthing said about it. Now you're surprize it's there?
Everything has a breaking point. There comes a point where it just gets to be too much and stops being fun.
ME3's endings not only crossed that line, it sprinted across and kept on going.
dreman9999 wrote...
Sorry but it's not bad because the question is extreme. Sorry but this is not a game you play brain dead. This game is notorious for geting the player to think.
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
iakus wrote...
dreman9999 wrote...
Thisa game of hypathetical. The point is to put in the poison to see how you react.
This is a game meant for entertainment. Not a psychology experiment. If I wanted that, I'd play Werewolf
Many hard choices lie ahead, none of them easy.
What are you willing to Sacrifice to stop an unstoppable force?
Sorry but the issue of moral conflict in ME was the firstthing said about it. Now you're surprize it's there?
Everything has a breaking point. There comes a point where it just gets to be too much and stops being fun.
ME3's endings not only crossed that line, it sprinted across and kept on going.
Modifié par ghost9191, 02 novembre 2012 - 10:54 .
ghost9191 wrote...
@Dr_Extrem
yeah i know, my shep wouldn't keep it secret though , "secrets get ppl killed" =) and keeping stuff in causes issues
and there is always his LI to comfort . not saying he won't have problems but , yeah
and as alan said before. the geth would die by the reaper too , so yeah . well unless you went control or synthesis , but still . so sh*tty position .
it is basically what are you willing to sacrifice. all are wrong. but one choice needs to be made or all is lost. and well only one truly gets rid of the reaper threat . and if the geth were destroyed over rannoch id say it would be easy
Retour en haut