1258 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
It's a good word to "hide behind because" it's an accurate one.

Shepard kills every single synthetic in the galaxy.  Not just the geth and EDI.  All of them.  Peaceful or hostile.  Combatant or not.  Whether they were involved in the Reaper war or not, they're dead.  That's genocide.  It may be seen as necessary to stop the Reapers.  But a necessary evil is still evil.  Dead is dead (unless you're a quasi-terrorist organization with a few billion credits to throw around)

And still, I find it the least evil of the three, which says something about what I think of the other two options. 

Yeah, except it's not, and I just told you one reason why it's not. So until you actually address that point, then I fail to see how they are the same.

You could just say "kill all synthetics" instead of genocide, you know. It's by definition more accurate and still represents a moral quandary without dragging in disanalogous specifics.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 février 2013 - 05:41 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
It's a good word to "hide behind because" it's an accurate one.

Shepard kills every single synthetic in the galaxy.  Not just the geth and EDI.  All of them.  Peaceful or hostile.  Combatant or not.  Whether they were involved in the Reaper war or not, they're dead.  That's genocide.  It may be seen as necessary to stop the Reapers.  But a necessary evil is still evil.  Dead is dead (unless you're a quasi-terrorist organization with a few billion credits to throw around)

And still, I find it the least evil of the three, which says something about what I think of the other two options. 

Yeah, except it's not, and I just told you one reason why it's not. So until you actually address that point, then I fail to see how they are the same.

And I told you why it is.  It may be justified or sugar-coated, but it still is what it is.  Whether or not it's the goal, genocide is the consequence of Destroy, dress it up as you like.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
And I told you why it is.  It may be justified or sugar-coated, but it still is what it is.  Whether or not it's the goal, genocide is the consequence of Destroy, dress it up as you like.

No, you haven't. What you have done is handwave the question of means and goals as if its irrelevant to the situation. It's not. Actively seeking out and killing someone because you believe the world is better of without them is one thing. Being put in a situation where you have to kill someone to save others from being killed is another.

It would be utterly ridiculous for someone conducting actual genocide against a race to say, "Look, I wish we could achieve the same result some other way but..." That's a contradiction as it is literally impossible for them to achieve their results without the specific means of killing an entire race of people. What makes something genocide is that the destruction of a race is inseparable from the intended result. It IS the intended result. And intent makes a lot of difference.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 février 2013 - 05:56 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

New flash:  this is not reality.  This is a game. I don't play games to be horrified.  Especially not in games that have allowed, even encouraged a more "heroic" mindset

Then why do you argue genocide?

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Paragon control..

[Kazzuuk]

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

New flash:  this is not reality.  This is a game. I don't play games to be horrified.  Especially not in games that have allowed, even encouraged a more "heroic" mindset

I agree with Mouton, the moment the reapers entered the galaxy, a "heroic" happy ending was not possible, nor would it have fit any of the narrative in relation to the in game universe.  Furthermore, I appreciate the makers of the game not having a clear cut happy ending.  I'm more or less neutral on the individual endings themselves, but I absolutely loved the fact that I had to sit there and really contemplate my choice.  A happy ending option would effectively remove any and all choice, because it would become the defacto best ending (nevermind that it would completey destroy the narrative more so than many think the current endings do).

To your point that "this is not reality" I completely agree, but this was never escapist fantasy in the vein of say Star Wars.  Mass Effect, from the first game on, presented you with tough choices (Virmire, etc) and a darker undertone to the series.  One complaint I would have about the series, is there was not enough tough choices.  Too many times they gave the player an out and that becomes the defacto best choice, thus really removing the gameplay mechanic of choice all together.

Modifié par Kazzuuk, 04 février 2013 - 06:09 .

[vialynn]

Kazzuuk wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

New flash:  this is not reality.  This is a game. I don't play games to be horrified.  Especially not in games that have allowed, even encouraged a more "heroic" mindset

I agree with Mouton, the moment the reapers entered the galaxy, a "heroic" happy ending was not possible, nor would it have fit any of the narrative in relation to the in game universe.  Furthermore, I appreciate the makers of the game not having a clear cut happy ending.  I'm more or less neutral on the individual endings themselves, but I absolutely loved the fact that I had to sit there and really contemplate my choice.  A happy ending option would effectively remove any and all choice, because it would become the defacto best ending (nevermind that it would completey destroy the narrative more so than many think the current endings do).

To your point that "this is not reality" I completely agree, but this was never escapist fantasy in the vein of say Star Wars.  Mass Effect, from the first game on, presented you with tough choices (Virmire, etc) and a darker undertone to the series.  One complaint I would have about the series, is there was not enough tough choices.  Too many times they gave the player an out and that becomes the defacto best choice, thus really removing the gameplay mechanic of choice all together.

I admit, I cannot understand the reasoning in the bolded part.  A well-written 'happy ending' should be no more a de-facto ending than whatever one your Shepard felt was the right thing to do at the end.  The fact that modern culture and storytelling may make that feel like the 'only correct choice' doesn't mean it is.

I'm actually somewhat glad that you felt content with the end of this game.  At least someone (and there are a fair few of you in this thread as well) enjoyed it.  I dont' mean that to sound snarky or bitter; I'm actually really glad the ending appealed to anyone.  I desperately loved the whole series, despite its flaws, and would be really sad if we never saw another game in this universe.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the end; it was the most patently disappointing ending to a game I have ever had the extreme pleasure to play.  I feel frustrated, disappointed, and betrayed by Bioware and their storytelling.  I now found myself wanting to screen each purchase from them (i.e. wait for the game to be reviewed and the ending spoiled so I can make sure I'll be ok with the ending) and that really makes me a little sad.

Whether or not I'll feel that way by the next game they release, we'll see.  But for now, it definetely stings.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
And I told you why it is.  It may be justified or sugar-coated, but it still is what it is.  Whether or not it's the goal, genocide is the consequence of Destroy, dress it up as you like.

No, you haven't. What you have done is handwave the question of means and goals as if its irrelevant to the situation. It's not. Actively seeking out and killing someone because you believe the world is better of without them is one thing. Being put in a situation where you have to kill someone to save others from being killed is another.

gen·o·cide/ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/  [jen-uh-sahyd]
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

That sounds pretty much what Destroy is.  And like I said, the argument could be made for its necessity to stop the Reapers.  One can also say Shepard is forced into the action, Jigsaw-style.  But that doesn't make it any less the systematic extermination of all synthetic life. The means and goal are irrelevant as far as the definition goes.   Once the deed is done, there is no more synthetic life anywhere in the galaxy.   

It would be utterly ridiculous for someone conducting actual genocide against a race to say, "Look, I wish we could achieve the same result some other way but..." That's a contradiction as it is literally impossible for them to achieve their results without the specific means of killing an entire race of people. What makes something genocide is that the destruction of a race is inseparable from the intended result. It IS the intended result. And intent makes a lot of difference.

What makes something genocide is the destruction of a race.  Full stop.  There is no "genocidal manslaughter"

Modifié par iakus, 04 février 2013 - 06:43 .

[Iakus]

Kazzuuk wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

It is a sacrifice made to win a war. If ending a horribly bloody war requires bombing a city, then the civilians inside are an ufortunate but necessary price. One can be horrified, but this is the reality and this is something that leaders, like Shepard, have to do.

New flash:  this is not reality.  This is a game. I don't play games to be horrified.  Especially not in games that have allowed, even encouraged a more "heroic" mindset

I agree with Mouton, the moment the reapers entered the galaxy, a "heroic" happy ending was not possible, nor would it have fit any of the narrative in relation to the in game universe.  Furthermore, I appreciate the makers of the game not having a clear cut happy ending.  I'm more or less neutral on the individual endings themselves, but I absolutely loved the fact that I had to sit there and really contemplate my choice.  A happy ending option would effectively remove any and all choice, because it would become the defacto best ending (nevermind that it would completey destroy the narrative more so than many think the current endings do).

To your point that "this is not reality" I completely agree, but this was never escapist fantasy in the vein of say Star Wars.  Mass Effect, from the first game on, presented you with tough choices (Virmire, etc) and a darker undertone to the series.  One complaint I would have about the series, is there was not enough tough choices.  Too many times they gave the player an out and that becomes the defacto best choice, thus really removing the gameplay mechanic of choice all together.

I wasn't expecting a perfect, "Disney ending' (how I'm growing to hate that term) ending either.  But the end chocies went far above and beyond any "imperfect" ending I would have expected.  To the point where it rendered ME3 and the entire trilogy up until that point unfun.  None of DAO's endings were "perfect" but slaying the archdemon didn't kill all the dalish either.

There's plenty of space between "golden ending" and "suicide and compromised honor"  Why didnt' they take advantage of that and give us a genuine spread of endings to work towards?

I find it interesting also that in one sentance you say a happy ending wouldn't fit in the narrative, yet in the very next paragraph you say "too many times they give the player an out"  Umm, so which is it?

[Mouton_Alpha]

vialynn wrote...

I admit, I cannot understand the reasoning in the bolded part.  A well-written 'happy ending' should be no more a de-facto ending than whatever one your Shepard felt was the right thing to do at the end.  The fact that modern culture and storytelling may make that feel like the 'only correct choice' doesn't mean it is.

I agree, this game could have a well written "happy ending". Done poory, tt could have easily ended up cheapening the experience, but, again, good writing could help it.

I only disagree with the notions raised in this thread that ME3 "had" to have a happy endign and that the current endings are either "unhappy" or "nihilistic".

iakus wrote...
What makes something genocide is the destruction of a race.  Full stop.  There is no "genocidal manslaughter"

This a moral absolutist stance and I , being them oral relativist that I am, strongly disagree with it. Practically every action can, in certain circumstances, be seen as positive - although of course some actions would require truly outlandish conditions. For instance, sacrifice of milions for a "good cause" is deeply embedded in our history.

[Iakus]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

vialynn wrote...

I admit, I cannot understand the reasoning in the bolded part.  A well-written 'happy ending' should be no more a de-facto ending than whatever one your Shepard felt was the right thing to do at the end.  The fact that modern culture and storytelling may make that feel like the 'only correct choice' doesn't mean it is.

I agree, this game could have a well written "happy ending". Done poory, tt could have easily ended up cheapening the experience, but, again, good writing could help it.

I only disagree with the notions raised in this thread that ME3 "had" to have a happy endign and that the current endings are either "unhappy" or "nihilistic".

iakus wrote...
What makes something genocide is the destruction of a race.  Full stop.  There is no "genocidal manslaughter"

This a moral absolutist stance and I , being them oral relativist that I am, strongly disagree with it. Practically every action can, in certain circumstances, be seen as positive - although of course some actions would require truly outlandish conditions. For instance, sacrifice of milions for a "good cause" is deeply embedded in our history.

There is wiggle room for duress and extenuating circumstances, but it's still genocide.  No circumstances make them any less dead.  If they had died volunteering to "hold the line" or whatever, like Mordin did. or if they are destroyed performing some heroic deed, in short, dying on their own terms, that would have been different.  But they don't.  They die unaware of what is about to happen.  They die not knowing how or why.  They die not to an enemy attack, but to an ally's.  One who may very well have just reassured his companions "You are not in this fight alone"

Besides which, I do believe there are some lines which, if crossed, you can't come back from. Some "gifts" come at too high a price.   All of the endings cross that line. 

Whoever dreamt up those endings should never, ever, be put in charge of a game where the player is allowed and encouraged to act in a heroic manner.  To yank the rug out like that with literally scant minutes left on the clock was little short of cruel.  (yes, I am aware of the rumors, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all they are, and I don't care if they're true or not)

[jtav]

The crime of genocide requires intent. Without that, Destroy falls under the question of military necessity. It may be a war crime, but it also may not be, depending on one's personal ethics. Beyond that, I'm glad the game got less heroic because "heroic" often got turned into "do what makes you feel good and you won't pay any price at all." You may not like the direction they went in, but it was their choice to make, and it was a valid one. You were not owed a happy ending or one that made you feel good. Play something else. Never buy another BW game. Just leave the rest of us in peace.

[Mouton_Alpha]

iakus wrote...

They die unaware of what is about to happen.  They die not knowing how or why.  They die not to an enemy attack, but to an ally's.  One who may very well have just reassured his companions "You are not in this fight alone"

Countless generals and leaders sacrificed whole units to save the whole army, often without the soldiers knowing what their role was. Others have bombarded their own cities, full of their own civilians in order to retake them from the enemy. Massacred milions of innocents in decisive strikes, in order to finally end the war that would otherwise claim many more. People and soldiers they took responsibility of, who trusted in them, whom they personaly reassured everything will be fine.

Shepard is such a leader. Hers is the heavy burden of leadership.

[Iakus]

jtav wrote...

The crime of genocide requires intent. Without that, Destroy falls under the question of military necessity. It may be a war crime, but it also may not be, depending on one's personal ethics. Beyond that, I'm glad the game got less heroic because "heroic" often got turned into "do what makes you feel good and you won't pay any price at all." You may not like the direction they went in, but it was their choice to make, and it was a valid one. You were not owed a happy ending or one that made you feel good. Play something else. Never buy another BW game. Just leave the rest of us in peace.

jtav, I have never belittled you for liking the endings, so I'll thank you not to belittle me for not liking them.

Edit:  and never let it be said I won't argue against Destroy as much as Synthesis

As for genocide, yes, in Destroy Shepard knowingly kills all synthetics.  Doesn't get much simpler than that.  It may have been a necessity, but the result was known ahead of time. 

And making the game this much less heroic was a terrible move.  You may hate the "pay no price at all" mentality, but they went far, far beyond that into "the ends justify any and all means"  which I find to be even worse.  Walk down that path, and heroes and villains become indistinguishable.  Shepard and Saren become uncomfortably similar.

Modifié par iakus, 04 février 2013 - 07:53 .

[Iakus]

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

iakus wrote...

They die unaware of what is about to happen.  They die not knowing how or why.  They die not to an enemy attack, but to an ally's.  One who may very well have just reassured his companions "You are not in this fight alone"

Countless generals and leaders sacrificed whole units to save the whole army, often without the soldiers knowing what their role was. Others have bombarded their own cities, full of their own civilians in order to retake them from the enemy. Massacred milions of innocents in decisive strikes, in order to finally end the war that would otherwise claim many more. People and soldiers they took responsibility of, who trusted in them, whom they personaly reassured everything will be fine.

Shepard is such a leader. Hers is the heavy burden of leadership.

How many personally executed every soldier of a given ethnicity under their command to ensure a win?

[ohaithere]

I would say I was owed a happy ending, or something to that extent. Without metagaming I did what I thought was right without any preventable deaths, the max required EMS, etc. Whether you're para or rena (more of a paragon man myself), there damn well should be a heroic ending if that's the way you've been playing the trilogy. Hell, the whole tone of the series is "never give up, there's always hope" and things of that nature.

Iakus to elaborate on your "pay no price at all" point, I don't know why BW felt they needed to add the Synthetic extermination to balance things out. The relays all become heavily damaged, the galaxy is still basically in ruins...you would think that's enough suffering. Instead you also kill every damned robot there is, even though you've basically helped them achieve individuality. War doesn't need to be that grim.

Modifié par ohaithere, 04 février 2013 - 08:00 .

[Mouton_Alpha]

iakus wrote...

Mouton_Alpha wrote...

iakus wrote...

They die unaware of what is about to happen.  They die not knowing how or why.  They die not to an enemy attack, but to an ally's.  One who may very well have just reassured his companions "You are not in this fight alone"

Countless generals and leaders sacrificed whole units to save the whole army, often without the soldiers knowing what their role was. Others have bombarded their own cities, full of their own civilians in order to retake them from the enemy. Massacred milions of innocents in decisive strikes, in order to finally end the war that would otherwise claim many more. People and soldiers they took responsibility of, who trusted in them, whom they personaly reassured everything will be fine.

Shepard is such a leader. Hers is the heavy burden of leadership.

How many personally executed every soldier of a given ethnicity under their command to ensure a win?

Did Commander Shepard do that?

[jtav]

Destroy is classic principle of double effect. The choice is made to destroy the Reapers. Destroying the geth is a side effect and Shep would be delighted if it didn't work. That makes a difference.

[Steelcan]

iakus wrote...


As for genocide, yes, in Destroy Shepard knowingly kills all synthetics.  Doesn't get much simpler than that.  It may have been a necessity, but the result was known ahead of time. 

. It wasnt malicious though.  Shepard didnt laugh manically while blowing them up, well maybe a little bit, they were an unfortunate consequence.  Shepard didnt kill them for being synthetics.

[fiendishchicken]

I just want an ending where they meet these criteria:

1) Shepard survives, bar none. No bull**** breathe scene or 'speculation'. I want to see him conscious and alive.

2) Reapers are dead and gone. Completely destroyed.

3) Telling the Catalyst that its crap is just that - crap. I don't care what its problem is. My problem is it and its Reaper buddies.

4) Having Miranda (or your LI) be with Shepard, both of whom are alive and conscious.

Done and Done.

[Steelcan]

fiendishchicken wrote...

I just want an ending where they meet these criteria:

1) Shepard survives, bar none. No bull**** breathe scene or 'speculation'. I want to see him conscious and alive.

2) Reapers are dead and gone. Completely destroyed.

3) Telling the Catalyst that its crap is just that - crap. I don't care what its problem is. My problem is it and its Reaper buddies.

4) Having Miranda (or your LI) be with Shepard, both of whom are alive and conscious.

Done and Done.

. But but SYNTHESIS!?!

[fiendishchicken]

Steelcan wrote...
 But but SYNTHESIS!?!

The only things I would support for Synthesis and Control would be for them to be Reaper traps.

I reject the organic vs. synthetic tech singularity. I think the Reapers should have just been the ultimate evil or whatnot. 

I'm not opposed to synthesis occuring in the future, after it has been attained scientifically and is consensually handed out to people, and actually makes sense instead of the space magic as shown.

I do oppose it when the Reapers advocate it. 

I hate how the Reapers are supposed to be sympathetic. 

[fiendishchicken]

Snake91 wrote...

Oh can you stop with that ending Bioware never gonna give it

I know.

But I can make BW remember that we never got it.