466 réponses à ce sujet

[HolyAvenger]

Ieldra2 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

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.

What you dislike, I love.

More shades of grey, please BioWare. None of this sunshine and happiness and winning all around stuff for me.

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.

I agree. My issue with the endings has to do with the Starbrat and poor narrative justifications, not the consequences of the endings themselves or the tough choices they force on you.

Heck, I would've been fine with Shepard NEEDING to die aka no breath scene.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" -- Sovereign.

. SHEPARD IS A REAPER!!!

[Dr_Extrem]

78stonewobble wrote...

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.

"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."

Thats not a fact though and probably just as selfimagined headcanon.

The Geth (as an interconnected collective) was an independent living being for 300 years. That the individual processes could gain additional independence and intelligence is a bonus or irrelevant.

That the Geth needed Reaper code to survive against the Quarians is imho irrelevant and at the very least does not say anything about their validity as independent living things before or after.

That some portion of the overall Geth interconnected collective wanted to selfimprove via Reaper code is also irrelevant imho and at the very least does not say anything about their validity as independent living things before or after.

yeah .. like they were not alive before ...

but thats a completely different "contruction site".

[HolyAvenger]

Nykara wrote...


Life sucks like that enough as it is. My games don't need to as well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Unambiguously happy endings are pretty boring, and definitely would not have fit with the overall dark nature of this game in particular. You got pretty happy endings in ME1 and 2, you know.

[KoorahUK]

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.

Sorry thats rubbish.

If a lone survivor chooses a life of military service, they do so knowing they may be killed in the line of duty and thus end their race forever. 

If the entire Geth Fleet were sent into a suicide mission they would be killed in the line of duty, but that is not the same as taking a course of action that you know will result in the extinction of every Geth, everywhere in the Galaxy whether they are engaged in military action on your behalf or not. One is military action with consenting soldiers. The other is genocide.

[ElSuperGecko]

KoorahUK wrote...
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.

The only documented case of the Geth as a species being unable to reach consensus; it's the exception, not the rule.  In ME3 the Geth decide to side with the Reapers and adopt Reaper code by consensus.  The decision is unanimous.
 

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?

Why? Because thanks to Shepard and Legion, the Geth had evolved further and were no longer susceptable to that kind of control.

So now you're basing your decision on what to do with the Geth on what happens AFTER that decision is made?  I guess your Shepard is clairvoyant, huh?  Or just really, really, really lucky.

AT THE POINT we make the decision regarding the Geth's future, what do we know?  We know that they  have come into conflict with us repeatedly.  We know they have sided with the Reapers repeatedly.  We know that as a collective they have deliberately chosen to lie to us regarding their intentions and we know that - just like the Illusive Man and Cerberus - they have adopted Reaper technology and Reaper code in an attempt to improve themselves and move beyond their own existing capabilities.

Throw them out of the airlock, Commander.  The machines cannot be trusted.

[78stonewobble]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
its perfectly valid.

the trucks were bombed to deny the taliban (who were already there) petrol. the alternative would have been an assault on the side - this would have cause several casualties AND maybe set off the trucks. 

the civilians killed, were classified as "colleteral damage" - the bundestag and the opposition thought different. the airstrike was maybe justified by the law mentioned in the op i cited but regardless of being "legal", it was amoral.

Well remove civilians from the example and it's would become slightly valid. Would the bundestag then call it amoral? 

The Geth are/were not civilians since they voluntarily joined the battle against the Reapers.

It's much more akin to a friendly fire incident or questionable strategy with ones own troops. And I'd grant an investigation into whether Shepards actions were justifiable, but lets not make it into something it's not.

[Aaleel]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

mass murder is not really better ..

the outcome is the same - it does not matter what we call it - the geth, edi and all other synthetic lifeforms are dead.

It's not even murder.  It's no more murder than flying the asteroid into the relay.

If aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and all the nations of this world decided on a plan to stop them and agreed that making a weapon was the only way to do it, but you find out that using the weapon would destroy most of the country the aliens were massed in and a lot of their population.  If you use the weapon you did not commit genocide or mass murder on the citizens of that country.  It was not your intent to kill these peole when you developed this plan of action. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 15 mars 2013 - 11:48 .

[Wulfram]

The thing about "necessity" is that there was another option.

Shepard ain't going to go on trial for it, so the legal niceties aren't going to matter. But I don't know how my Destroy Shepard is going live with that decision, never knowing if the risks that made her choose against Control would have happened.

Modifié par Wulfram, 15 mars 2013 - 11:50 .

[Dr_Extrem]

78stonewobble wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
its perfectly valid.

the trucks were bombed to deny the taliban (who were already there) petrol. the alternative would have been an assault on the side - this would have cause several casualties AND maybe set off the trucks. 

the civilians killed, were classified as "colleteral damage" - the bundestag and the opposition thought different. the airstrike was maybe justified by the law mentioned in the op i cited but regardless of being "legal", it was amoral.

Well remove civilians from the example and it's would become slightly valid. Would the bundestag then call it amoral? 

The Geth are/were not civilians since they voluntarily joined the battle against the Reapers.

It's much more akin to a friendly fire incident or questionable strategy with ones own troops. And I'd grant an investigation into whether Shepards actions were justifiable, but lets not make it into something it's not.

imagine those people were not civilians, but british or american soldiers. just for the lolz.

[Nykara]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Nykara wrote...


Life sucks like that enough as it is. My games don't need to as well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Unambiguously happy endings are pretty boring, and definitely would not have fit with the overall dark nature of this game in particular. You got pretty happy endings in ME1 and 2, you know.

They were not the ending to Commander Shepards story. I also didn't really see ME2's ending as a happy one in as much as my Shepard never got to meet up with Kaidan again there till #3 where she then proceeded to go and die on him again.. oops.

I am all for many many shades of grey throughout the game itself, like the Kaidan/Ash senario in #1 or Mordin in #3 but the ending I like to see something a little more uplifting.  An ending like ME3's makes the rest pretty pointless. Why bother doing the fight over again, when you know you can't win? No matter how good the 'journey' is. Each to our own though, really. Yes Mass Effect was dark. Especially #3 but there was already so many shades of grey and sad moments throughout for people who like that kind of thing, the ending didn't have to join it.

[Dr_Extrem]

Aaleel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

mass murder is not really better ..

the outcome is the same - it does not matter what we call it - the geth, edi and all other synthetic lifeforms are dead.

It's not even murder.  It's no more murder than flying the asteroid into the relay.

If aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and all the nations of this world decided on a plan to stop them and agreed that making a weapon was the only way to do it, but you find out that using the weapon would destroy most of the country the aliens were massed in and a lot of their population.  If you use the weapon you did not commit genocide or mass murder on the citizens of that country.  It was not your intent to kill these peole when you developed this plan of action. 

it would still be murder, because it would fit at least two requirements.

- the geth are defenseless and dont expect it.
- shepard chooses, knowing that it will kill the geth. 

two requirements are met - it would be considered as murder.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 15 mars 2013 - 11:53 .

[Han Shot First]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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/

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.

The Kunduz airstrike can hardly be comparded to the destruction of the Reapers. In the former the target was merely two fuel tankers of little military significance, while the latter is an entire fleet of hyper-advanced A.I. starships actively involved in annihilating all sapient space-faring life. The fate of entire civilizations was not hanging in the balance at Kunduz, nor is there any threat that the war in Afghanistan could cause our species to go extinct.

The destruction of the Reapers, even if it comes at the cost of EDI and the Geth, constitutes military necessity, because destroying them is the only means to guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. It is also the only means that guarantees that sapient organic space faring life won't be simply snuffed out by a fully intact Reaper fleet at some later date.

Of course since Mass Effect is only a video game, as players we know that Bioware isn't going to turn around and have the Reapers annihilate the galaxy in the aftermath of Control or Synthesis. No one is going to boot up Mass Effect 4 and be told, "You chose Synthesis or Control? Sorry, your species is now extinct. Go back and load an old save of ME3 and choose Destroy."

But what the player knows and what Shepard knows are not one and the same. Realistically the Control and Synthesis options would be far too risky in that they involve sparing the Reapers, and allowing the galaxy to continue to be monitored by some version of the Catalyst. Synthesis is perhaps the worst offender, in that the existing Catalyst that is response for annihilating countless civilizations is still firmly in control of thousands of Reapers. But even the Shepard Catalyst represents a threat, in that it isn't actually Shepard. It is simply an A.I. mimicing his or her personality. Could Shepard guarantee that it wouldn't eventually reach the same conclusions as the Catalyst that preceded it?

Destroy is the only ending choice that actually makes sense, and the only one to truly guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. As such it is also the only one that truly accomplishes the mission. Control and Synthesis are stalemate endings where the galaxy hopes the Reapers won't once again wage war and destroy them.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 15 mars 2013 - 11:54 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Han Shot First wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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/

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.

The Kunduz airstrike can hardly be comparded to the destruction of the Reapers. In the former the target was merely two fuel tankers of little military significance, while the latter is an entire fleet of hyper-advanced A.I. starships actively involved in annihilating all sapient space-faring life. The fate of entire civilizations was not hanging in the balance at Kunduz, nor is there any threat that the war in Afghanistan could cause our species to go extinct.

The destruction of the Reapers, even if it comes at the cost of EDI and the Geth, constitutes military necessity, because destroying them is the only means to guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization. It is also the only means that guarantees that sapient organic space faring life won't be simply snuffed out by a fully intact Reaper fleet at some later date.

Of course since Mass Effect is only a video game, as players we know that Bioware isn't going to turn around and have the Reapers annihilate the galaxy in the aftermath of Control or Synthesis. No one is going to boot up Mass Effect 4 and be told, "You chose Synthesis or Control? Sorry, your species is now extinct. Go back and load an old save of ME3 and choose Destroy."

But what the player knows and what Shepard knows are not one and the same. Realistically the Control and Synthesis options would be far too risky in that they involve sparing the Reapers, and allowing the galaxy to continue to be monitored by some version of the Catalyst. Synthesis is perhaps the worst offender, in that the existing Catalyst that is response for annihilating countless civilizations is still firmly in control of thousands of Reapers. But even the Shepard Catalyst represents a threat, in that it isn't actually Shepard. It is simply an A.I. mimicing his or her personality. Could Shepard guarantee that it wouldn't eventually reach the same conclusions as the Catalyst that preceded it?

Destroy is the only ending choice that actually makes sense, and the only one to truly guarantee the continued survival of galactic civilization.

so the only thing that matters is the scope?

when does right become wrong? how many people does it take?

[Aaleel]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

mass murder is not really better ..

the outcome is the same - it does not matter what we call it - the geth, edi and all other synthetic lifeforms are dead.

It's not even murder.  It's no more murder than flying the asteroid into the relay.

If aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and all the nations of this world decided on a plan to stop them and agreed that making a weapon was the only way to do it, but you find out that using the weapon would destroy most of the country the aliens were massed in and a lot of their population.  If you use the weapon you did not commit genocide or mass murder on the citizens of that country.  It was not your intent to kill these peole when you developed this plan of action. 

it would still be murder, because it would fit at least two requirements.

- the geth are defenseless and dont expect it.
- shepard chooses, knowing that it will kill the geth. 

two requirements are met - it would be considered as murder.

Murder requires intent, and you had none, so no it's not.

[HolyAvenger]

Nykara wrote...

They were not the ending to Commander Shepards story. I also didn't really see ME2's ending as a happy one in as much as my Shepard never got to meet up with Kaidan again there till #3 where she then proceeded to go and die on him again.. oops.

I am all for many many shades of grey throughout the game itself, like the Kaidan/Ash senario in #1 or Mordin in #3 but the ending I like to see something a little more uplifting.  An ending like ME3's makes the rest pretty pointless. Why bother doing the fight over again, when you know you can't win? No matter how good the 'journey' is. Each to our own though, really. Yes Mass Effect was dark. Especially #3 but there was already so many shades of grey and sad moments throughout for people who like that kind of thing, the ending didn't have to join it.

Nah f*ck uplifting. I'm playing a war story, not watching a romcom.

Edit: I'll expand on that to come across as less dickish.

For me, a positive ending wouldn't really have fit thematically into the story. This was a story about galactic civilization hanging on by its fingertips, at the edge of despair. This was about the last throw of the dice. For things to come out sunshine and roses would've made me gag. If the ending wasn't as dark as the rest of the game, it would've made a lot of those darker moments that preceded it have a lot less impact as well, IMO.

The ending had to join in. Otherwise the game would've ended on a really discordant note.

IMO they should've made Shep's death canon.

Modifié par HolyAvenger, 15 mars 2013 - 11:59 .

[Aaleel]

Wulfram wrote...

The thing about "necessity" is that there was another option.

Shepard ain't going to go on trial for it, so the legal niceties aren't going to matter. But I don't know how my Destroy Shepard is going live with that decision, never knowing if the risks that made her choose against Control would have happened.

This I completely agree with. 

[Nykara]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

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.

What you dislike, I love.

More shades of grey, please BioWare. None of this sunshine and happiness and winning all around stuff for me.

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.

I agree. My issue with the endings has to do with the Starbrat and poor narrative justifications, not the consequences of the endings themselves or the tough choices they force on you.

Heck, I would've been fine with Shepard NEEDING to die aka no breath scene.

I actually would have been okay with it if Shepard got to get on to the coms to the Normandy and was able to say goodbye to his/her LI properly instead of the 'I'll be back soon' scene we got on Earth. That would have been a proper bitter sweet moment, not dying alone in the middle of the citadel with no one to say goodbye to and no scene following where Shepard had left his/her LI a message. I mean really would that have been so hard to put in?

[Han Shot First]

To quote Garrus, its the ruthless calculus of war.

How many Geth are there? A few billion maybe? They pale in comparison to the trillions of lives threatened by the continued existence of an intact Reaper fleet ruled over by an A.I. overlord.

Unlike with organics, death for synthetics is also not necessarily eternal. As such it does not carry nearly the same weight. EDI was destroyed on Luna and yet was rebuilt and upgraded, with some of her memories from Luna still intact. The Catalyst also notes specifically in reference to a query regarding the fate of Synthetics, that anything destroyed by the Crucible can be rebuilt. So the destruction of the Geth may only be temporary, even if individuals are lost.

[Dr_Extrem]

Aaleel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

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.

mass murder is not really better ..

the outcome is the same - it does not matter what we call it - the geth, edi and all other synthetic lifeforms are dead.

It's not even murder.  It's no more murder than flying the asteroid into the relay.

If aliens attacked the Earth tomorrow and all the nations of this world decided on a plan to stop them and agreed that making a weapon was the only way to do it, but you find out that using the weapon would destroy most of the country the aliens were massed in and a lot of their population.  If you use the weapon you did not commit genocide or mass murder on the citizens of that country.  It was not your intent to kill these peole when you developed this plan of action. 

it would still be murder, because it would fit at least two requirements.

- the geth are defenseless and dont expect it.
- shepard chooses, knowing that it will kill the geth. 

two requirements are met - it would be considered as murder.

Murder requires intent, and you had none, so no it's not.

the intent is met, when you decide to choose destroy over the other two possibilities. if you had no other choices, you would be right.

[78stonewobble]

KoorahUK wrote...
Sorry thats rubbish.

If a lone survivor chooses a life of military service, they do so knowing they may be killed in the line of duty and thus end their race forever. 

If the entire Geth Fleet were sent into a suicide mission they would be killed in the line of duty, but that is not the same as taking a course of action that you know will result in the extinction of every Geth, everywhere in the Galaxy whether they are engaged in military action on your behalf or not. One is military action with consenting soldiers. The other is genocide.

Well according to these interpretations of the meaning of the word genocide:

" Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group", "

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

I am pretty much spot on.

Does Shepard destroy the Reapers as part of intending to wipe out the Geth? Ie. was killing all Geth a goal for Shepard?

Though you can play Shepard in many different ways the answer is most often no. Since if Shepard definately wanted to wipe out the Geth he could allready have done so via other means (letting them loose to the Quarians).

Both definitions imply that the act MUST be deliberate and intentional as toward achieving the specific genocide.

The intent of my Shepard is to destroy the Reapers. The destruction of the Geth is thus a nonintentional sideeffect.

My victory conditions are also the destruction of the Reapers. So there isn't a choice for me. The other 2 options are basically "mission failed" screens to me... And most people didn't end their game there right?

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 15 mars 2013 - 12:03 .

[Han Shot First]

When the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, Allied POWs and Korean slave laborers were among the casualties. The intent was never to kill those people however, as the Japanese had been the target.

The destruction of EDI and the Geth is similar. It is a horrifying example of collateral damage. But murder? I think that goes a bit too far, as murder requires intent.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 15 mars 2013 - 12:01 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Han Shot First wrote...

To quote Garrus, its the ruthless calculus of war.

How many Geth are there? A few billion maybe? They pale in comparison to the trillions of lives threatened by the continued existence of an intact Reaper fleet ruled over by an A.I. overlord.

Unlike with organics, death for synthetics is also not necessarily eternal. As such it does not carry nearly the same weight. EDI was destroyed on Luna and yet was rebuilt and upgraded, with some of her memories from Luna still intact. The Catalyst also notes specifically in reference to a query regarding the fate of Synthetics, that anything destroyed by the Crucible can be rebuilt. So the destruction of the Geth may only be temporary, even if individuals are lost.

it is. the moment edi goes offline, she is dead. she is bluebox-depending and the moment she comes back online, she has a different personality and therefore is a different being.

after the war, there would be no reaper code left, to "reupgrade" the geth. they would be different beings as well.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 15 mars 2013 - 12:03 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Han Shot First wrote...

When the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, Allied POWs and Korean slave laborers were among the casualties. The intent was never to kill those people however, as the Japanese had been the target.

The destruction of EDI and the Geth is similar. It is a horrifying example of collateral damage. But murder? I think that goes a bit too far, as murder requires intent.

if i would say something like this, stones would fly into my direction.

[Han Shot First]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

To quote Garrus, its the ruthless calculus of war.

How many Geth are there? A few billion maybe? They pale in comparison to the trillions of lives threatened by the continued existence of an intact Reaper fleet ruled over by an A.I. overlord.

Unlike with organics, death for synthetics is also not necessarily eternal. As such it does not carry nearly the same weight. EDI was destroyed on Luna and yet was rebuilt and upgraded, with some of her memories from Luna still intact. The Catalyst also notes specifically in reference to a query regarding the fate of Synthetics, that anything destroyed by the Crucible can be rebuilt. So the destruction of the Geth may only be temporary, even if individuals are lost.

it is. the moment edi goes offline, she is dead. she is bluebox-depending and the moment she comes back online, she has a different personality and therefore is a different being.

That is an assumption.

As I said EDI was destroyed once before and brought back as the same individual. She retained memories from her time on Luna. Will the same happen after 'dying' in Destroy? No one knows. Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. It is a different set of circumstances, and no one can say whether a rebuilt EDI would still be EDI. Even post-Lazarus Shepard questioned whether he was still the same individual from Mass Effect 1.

But even if individuals are lost, the 'species' isn't necessarily. The Geth can be rebuilt, even if they aren't the same individuals. As such their destruction does not carry nearly the same weight as the extinction of an organic species, which would be gone forever.

Death is not as permanent a state for Synthetics as it is for organics.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 15 mars 2013 - 12:06 .