KoorahUK wrote...
I remember fighting humans during Arrival, not Geth - so if both Geth and Organics are prone to Reaper control why is it that the Geth cannot be trusted but organics can?
Dr_Extrem wrote...
all endings are pre godwined "screw-you scenarios", where shepard has to sacrifice several basic rights, who are part of the galactic society, in order to save it. they all are no-win scenarios.
No, but Cerberus isn't a race. Destroying Cerberus does not wipe out the entire human race.ElSuperGecko wrote...
The Geth aren't simply machines, they're merely the Synthetic version of Cerberus.BD Manchild wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
"I want the Reapers destroyed and for Shepard to survive, and I don't want to feel bad, so the geth are just machines."
That's the general impression I get from reading comments from the more hardcore Destroy supporters.
Do you have a problem with killing Cerberus?
That's exactly how you were supposed to feel. I like that. Beating the Reapers should come at great cost, personal and universal.BD Manchild wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
all endings are pre godwined "screw-you scenarios", where shepard has to sacrifice several basic rights, who are part of the galactic society, in order to save it. they all are no-win scenarios.
That's exactly the way I feel. Regardless of which ending I pick, I feel like I've lost.
Steelcan wrote...
. No it doesn't. But neither do people so, I'm not sure what he's getting at.Voodoo2015 wrote...
Does this unit have a soul? This is why didn't whant to destroy them.
BD Manchild wrote...
I'm not even going to dignify that spot of crazy moon logic with a straight answer.
Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 15 mars 2013 - 11:13 .
Han Shot First wrote...
The destruction of EDI and the Geth as a consequence of using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers isn't an example of genocide. Its a horrifying example of collateral damage, however the destruction of the Reapers constitutes military necessity.
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.
http://www.crimesofw...tary-necessity/
Modifié par 78stonewobble, 15 mars 2013 - 11:14 .
Han Shot First wrote...
The destruction of EDI and the Geth as a consequence of using the Crucible to destroy the Reapers isn't an example of genocide. Its a horrifying example of collateral damage, however the destruction of the Reapers constitutes military necessity.
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.
http://www.crimesofw...tary-necessity/
Dr_Extrem wrote...
BD Manchild wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
So, OP - committing genocide earlier to avoid committing it later. Where have I heard that before...
Also, nice way to justify Destroy by saying the geth are just machines. It seems that the pro-organic theme of Destroy is working in a roundabout way: "I want the Reapers destroyed and for Shepard to survive, and I don't want to feel bad, so the geth are just machines."
That's the general impression I get from the more hardcore Destroy supporters, and frankly with what I've seen of their almost cult-like fanaticism it's slightly creepy. I'm not saying that none of the other endings have their lunatic element, but the Destroy crazies are being particularly vocal lately.
yeah ... destroy is not any better than the other endings.
the only difference is, that the destroy ending is a bit more obvious than the other two.
geth and edi are lifeforms - thats a fact. it does not matter if we dont like them. their status as lifeforms does not depend on our views on them. they are sentient (edi is able to adjust her core programming, to be able protect the crew if needed) and self aware. just because it is different life, its not less worthy.
all endings are pre godwined "screw-you scenarios", where shepard has to sacrifice several basic rights, who are part of the galactic society, in order to save it. they all are no-win scenarios.
BD Manchild wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
all endings are pre godwined "screw-you scenarios", where shepard has to sacrifice several basic rights, who are part of the galactic society, in order to save it. they all are no-win scenarios.
That's exactly the way I feel. Regardless of which ending I pick, I feel like I've lost.
What you dislike, I love.Nykara wrote...
And that is why the ending sucks. I am over games ending like that. DA:O was another one. None of the endings in it were 'good' endings. They were all shades of grey. Especially for Alistar 'mancers. I haven't played DA:2 but I have heard the ending of it is not good either. For once I would like to feel as if all the effort throughout the game was for a good win. Not various levels of no-win scenarios. With Shepard and crew being my absolute favorite hero's of course I wanted a win senario for them. Who wouldn't want one for their favorite game? ME is one of about 3 games I have ever played with any amount of seriousness. That's why the ending stung so much and why it's hard to let go of what we got.
"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" -- Sovereign.Steelcan wrote...
Or you could just not care about the geth. I made peace on Rannoch, but I have zero issues killing them all. They survived only because I let them. They will die when I make them.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 mars 2013 - 11:17 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" -- Sovereign.Steelcan wrote...
Or you could just not care about the geth. I made peace on Rannoch, but I have zero issues killing them all. They survived only because I let them. They will die when I make them.
BD Manchild wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
all endings are pre godwined "screw-you scenarios", where shepard has to sacrifice several basic rights, who are part of the galactic society, in order to save it. they all are no-win scenarios.
That's exactly the way I feel. Regardless of which ending I pick, I feel like I've lost.
HolyAvenger wrote...
What you dislike, I love.Nykara wrote...
And that is why the ending sucks. I am over games ending like that. DA:O was another one. None of the endings in it were 'good' endings. They were all shades of grey. Especially for Alistar 'mancers. I haven't played DA:2 but I have heard the ending of it is not good either. For once I would like to feel as if all the effort throughout the game was for a good win. Not various levels of no-win scenarios. With Shepard and crew being my absolute favorite hero's of course I wanted a win senario for them. Who wouldn't want one for their favorite game? ME is one of about 3 games I have ever played with any amount of seriousness. That's why the ending stung so much and why it's hard to let go of what we got.
More shades of grey, please BioWare. None of this sunshine and happiness and winning all around stuff for me.
Not correct. We learn from Legion in ME2 that this is not the case at all; the Reaper worshiping faction of Geth were not in tune with the rest of the Geth so they left and did their own thing. If Reaper control is inevitible, how come the Reapers didn't simply re-assert control when the Geth fleet arrived through the Sol relay and attack the Allied fleet in the rear?ElSuperGecko wrote...
KoorahUK wrote...
I remember fighting humans during Arrival, not Geth - so if both Geth and Organics are prone to Reaper control why is it that the Geth cannot be trusted but organics can?
Because not ALL organics have been corrupted by Reaper code and tech. And not ALL organics act by consensus. ALL Geth have, and ALL Geth do.
Dr_Extrem wrote...
it looks nice on paper - but it collides with reality.
kunduz airstrike
it fits your description - but the commanding officer was releaved from duty and the deputy defense minister had to leave his post as well.
there were "only" over 100 civilians killed and the backlash was there. killing an entire people would cause even more - despite the fact, that shepard saved the galaxy. even if there would be no legel repercussions, the action was made and can not be undone. saviour and mass murderer of allies.
rights are not a tradable commodity.
Nykara wrote...
HolyAvenger wrote...
What you dislike, I love.Nykara wrote...
And that is why the ending sucks. I am over games ending like that. DA:O was another one. None of the endings in it were 'good' endings. They were all shades of grey. Especially for Alistar 'mancers. I haven't played DA:2 but I have heard the ending of it is not good either. For once I would like to feel as if all the effort throughout the game was for a good win. Not various levels of no-win scenarios. With Shepard and crew being my absolute favorite hero's of course I wanted a win senario for them. Who wouldn't want one for their favorite game? ME is one of about 3 games I have ever played with any amount of seriousness. That's why the ending stung so much and why it's hard to let go of what we got.
More shades of grey, please BioWare. None of this sunshine and happiness and winning all around stuff for me.
Life sucks like that enough as it is. My games don't need to as well.
Nykara wrote...
Life sucks like that enough as it is. My games don't need to as well.
78stonewobble wrote...
Dr_Extrem wrote...
it looks nice on paper - but it collides with reality.
kunduz airstrike
it fits your description - but the commanding officer was releaved from duty and the deputy defense minister had to leave his post as well.
there were "only" over 100 civilians killed and the backlash was there. killing an entire people would cause even more - despite the fact, that shepard saved the galaxy. even if there would be no legel repercussions, the action was made and can not be undone. saviour and mass murderer of allies.
rights are not a tradable commodity.
Thats not applicable here.
An analogy would be more like bombing too close to some of your own troops to prevent an entire base from getting overrun.
It doesn't matter if among those troops were the lone survivor of random indigineous people X. It could not and would never be a genocide to do that, because intent matter.
I think this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem for most people if the choices weren't presented by the antagonist. I'm absolutely fine with hard choices, I can justify Destroy (I just hate the hypocritical justifications) and all other options, and I'm fine with all the ending outcomes, but having to accept the reasoning of the entity I've been fighting, without confirmation of the Crucible functionality from a more neutral source, that sucks.HolyAvenger wrote...
What you dislike, I love.Nykara wrote...
And that is why the ending sucks. I am over games ending like that. DA:O was another one. None of the endings in it were 'good' endings. They were all shades of grey. Especially for Alistar 'mancers. I haven't played DA:2 but I have heard the ending of it is not good either. For once I would like to feel as if all the effort throughout the game was for a good win. Not various levels of no-win scenarios. With Shepard and crew being my absolute favorite hero's of course I wanted a win senario for them. Who wouldn't want one for their favorite game? ME is one of about 3 games I have ever played with any amount of seriousness. That's why the ending stung so much and why it's hard to let go of what we got.
More shades of grey, please BioWare. None of this sunshine and happiness and winning all around stuff for me.
Modifié par Aaleel, 15 mars 2013 - 11:33 .
Aaleel wrote...
You avoid it being genocide by the fact that it's not genocide.
The only way destroy would be genocide is if you singled out Geth and only Geth, built the Crucible for the sole purpose of killing Geth and used it to kill Geth. Having a plan agreed upon by all races including the Geth, and then finding out at the very last moment that Geth are going to die in the military strike is not genocide it just isn't.
Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 15 mars 2013 - 11:34 .
ElSuperGecko wrote...
Uh-huh. "It doesn't suit my agenda, so I'm not going to debate the point". Way to bury your head in the sand, right there.
TIM deliberately and knowingly modifies his soldiers (who before the modifications were simply innocent, normal civilians) with Reaper technology, and you happily gun them down without a second thought.
The Geth, as a race, choose BY CONSENSUS to side with the Reapers and adopt Reaper technology and Reaper code into their collective.
It's exactly the same thing. TIM convinces himself that he is working in the best interests of humanity by adopting and modifying himself with Reaper technology. the Geth convince themselves that the ONLY way they can survive and become TRUE AI's is by adopting Reaper code and Reaper technology.
Newsflash - if the Geth NEED to adopt Reaper code in order to become truly independent living beings then they're NOT truly independent living beings, and they NEVER will be.
Yet you're willing to blindly overlook these FACTS because it doesn't suit your own. personal headcanon.
Retour en haut