466 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr_Extrem]

Han Shot First wrote...

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.

then edi was either retconed (again) or resists the laws of the mass effect world. the lore is clear - blueboxed ais are dead, once they are taken offline. when you turn them on again, they have different personalities.

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

[UnknownMercenary]

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 do not mind shades of grey endings, but ME3 has to be one of the worst executions of it I've seen. Having a talking infodump mitigated any shock value of the ending, and it was a poor attempt to mimick endings plucked from a game with different themes made a decade earlier.

A singular destroy ending with all of the caveats originally attached, but UNEXPLAINED would have had been more effective, although I do not really agree with the complete tonal shift of ME3.

[KoorahUK]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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.

Ok forget the hindsight…

In ME2 Legion explains that the majority of Geth did not want to upload Reaper Code because it “blinds you to alternatives”. Other Geth did not see it the same way. This disproves your assertion that ALL GETH side with the Reapers by choice and that ALL Geth think the same way and live by consensus. It may be the only case we are informed about but that doesn’t mean it’s the only case of it happening. It shows the capacity to do it which is the
critical point.

In ME3 it is also explained that they upload Reaper code to defend themselves from the Quarians who were pounding the **** out of them, degrading their collective intelligence. They were scared; this was a desperate act of self-preservation, a last resort to prevent annihilation, not a choice to join themselves to the Reapers taken at the first opportunity. If the Quarians hadn’t attacked them they would not have done it.

Fear, self-preservation, desperation - not qualities you assign to toasters are they?

Finally, the Reaper code was modified by Legion/Geth VI to allow Geth to live with more independent personalities - like Legion himself. With the threat of the Quarians over and the Reaper code modified to bring them to full intelligence they immediately allied themselves with the organics and joined the fight against the Reapers long before the final assault. If the Reapers could still have asserted influence over them, the Allies would have known
it long before the final battle.

Shepard knows all of this before the Crucible. That’s not Clairvoyance, its just paying attention.

Modifié par KoorahUK, 15 mars 2013 - 12:13 .

[HolyAvenger]

UnknownMercenary 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 do not mind shades of grey endings, but ME3 has to be one of the worst executions of it I've seen. Having a talking infodump mitigated any shock value of the ending, and it was a poor attempt to mimick endings plucked from a game with different themes made a decade earlier.

A singular destroy ending with all of the caveats originally attached, but UNEXPLAINED would have had been more effective, although I do not really agree with the complete tonal shift of ME3.

HolyAvenger wrote...

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.

[78stonewobble]

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

Oooooh... The americans most certainly wouldn't have liked that.

However. Friendly Fire is certainly not unheard off in Afghanistan and I think there have been a few cases of criminal misconduct and/or negligence. That is, however, not the same as murder or anything remotely resembling the intent to commit genocide.

There have also, as there have been throughout history, cases of individual or groups of soldiers going... well bat **** crazy and shooting up civilians for the heck of it.

That is murder, but again hardly signifying an overall intent of the nation in particular to commit genocide.

War is nasty business and humans atleast are very fallible. Even with rules and good intentions along the way.

[78stonewobble]

UnknownMercenary wrote...
I do not mind shades of grey endings, but ME3 has to be one of the worst executions of it I've seen. Having a talking infodump mitigated any shock value of the ending, and it was a poor attempt to mimick endings plucked from a game with different themes made a decade earlier.

A singular destroy ending with all of the caveats originally attached, but UNEXPLAINED would have had been more effective, although I do not really agree with the complete tonal shift of ME3.

I agree with this.

A good grey ending would leave me very happy and very sad at the same time. I don't define a bittersweet / grey ending as the absense of those emotions, but a potent mix of both.

It's extra sad because it (me3 and the earlier games) invoked emotions so much better than so many other games elsewhere.

As it is... I'd have much preferred a no nonsense happy ending. Because leaving the game behind with a smile beats disinterested and disappointed.

[Dr_Extrem]

78stonewobble wrote...

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

Oooooh... The americans most certainly wouldn't have liked that.

However. Friendly Fire is certainly not unheard off in Afghanistan and I think there have been a few cases of criminal misconduct and/or negligence. That is, however, not the same as murder or anything remotely resembling the intent to commit genocide.

There have also, as there have been throughout history, cases of individual or groups of soldiers going... well bat **** crazy and shooting up civilians for the heck of it.

That is murder, but again hardly signifying an overall intent of the nation in particular to commit genocide.

War is nasty business and humans atleast are very fallible. Even with rules and good intentions along the way.

i think you misunderstood the intent of my post. a user posted a link and quoted this

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/

the kunduz affair showed, that even if something can be justified with "military necessity", it does not make it right.


just vs. right

something can be just but not right.

[KoorahUK]

78stonewobble wrote...

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?

Many people in the UK are outraged by the fact that Starbucks didn't pay a penny in Corporation Tax for years. All above board and legal according to the statuate books. Pretty morally questionable though. This argument is much the same.

You are arguing about the legal definition of genocide. I'm arguing about the popular one, and the one that everybody else in this thread is arguing about. Taking a course of action you know will result in the extinction of an entire race of sentient beings whether they are active combatants or not.

By choosing Destroy you achieve your military goal of defeating the Reapers in the full knowledge that this course of action will also wipe out the Geth. Your Shepard feels they have no alternative, mine does not feel the same way. Destroying the Geth feels like Genocide to her, whether legal semantics would argue with that definition or not. There is an alternative and to choose Destroy is unacceptable to her.

As I've said elsewhere though, my Renegade Shepard fried those mother****ers good.

Modifié par KoorahUK, 15 mars 2013 - 12:39 .

[KBomb]

My Shep didn't live. When I played, in order to get enough EMS you had to depend on MP to obtain the breath scene. I chose it expecting my Shepard to die, so wanting to live had no influence on my decision. Killing the reapers did. If I did a second playthrough, I would choose it again. While all endings are horrid, Control and Synthesis was never an option. Both had too many variables to be considered when weighed against the sure thing, imo.

[78stonewobble]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i think you misunderstood the intent of my post. a user posted a link and quoted this

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/

the kunduz affair showed, that even if something can be justified with "military necessity", it does not make it right.


just vs. right

something can be just but not right.

No I understood it. 

I do agree that just != right.

 That F can be wrong however doesn't mean that C is automatically wrong and sometimes whether F is wrong or right depends on the variable of A.

If Shepard wants to/needs to destroy the reapers then he is both just and right to destroy the reapers. Even though it comes at the cost it does.

What is unjust and wrong is the shape of the me3 universe where those 2 are dependent on each other.

It's more a case of life being unfair than it is those within it reacting to this unfairly.

[Nykara]

KBomb wrote...

My Shep didn't live. When I played, in order to get enough EMS you had to depend on MP to obtain the breath scene. I chose it expecting my Shepard to die, so wanting to live had no influence on my decision. Killing the reapers did. If I did a second playthrough, I would choose it again. While all endings are horrid, Control and Synthesis was never an option. Both had too many variables to be considered when weighed against the sure thing, imo.

I honestly have a hard time seeing any of them as sure things given who they are coming from. " I control the Reapers' Oh, great so I am supposed to just trust that you will A) Kill them all and not have a bunch hiding some place. Not indoctrinate us all or C) actually allow me to call the shots.. umm.. yeah. No. Just for some added icing on the cake when choosing one of those crappy options Shep also gets to do so alone and die alone. Some bittersweet hero's ending that turned out to be.

[78stonewobble]

KoorahUK wrote...
Many people in the UK are outraged by the fact that Starbucks didn't pay a penny in Corporation Tax for years. All above board and legal according to the statuate books. Pretty morally questionable though. This argument is much the same.

You are arguing about the legal definition of genocide. I'm arguing about the popular one, and the one that everybody else in this thread is arguing about. Taking a course of action you know will result in the extinction of an entire race of sentient beings whether they are active combatants or not.

By choosing Destroy you achieve your military goal of defeating the Reapers in the full knowledge that this course of action will also wipe out the Geth. Your Shepard feels they have no alternative, mine does not feel the same way. Destroying the Geth feels like Genocide to her, whether legal semantics would argue with that definition or not. There is an alternative and to choose Destroy is unacceptable to her.

As I've said elsewhere though, my Renegade Shepard fried those mother****ers good.

Yeah there obviously is a difference.

Still... Atleast for my playthrough, the interpretation that it was deliberate and/or genocide is very exaggerated.

Allmost akin to putting people speeding on trial for manslaughter. Because they know there is that extra percent chance of an accident and they do it knowingly.

You could call it rationalisation... But my Shepard was ready to sacrifice himself to win over the Reapers. So was everyone else who joined the call to arms.

Shepard doesn't get to choose that it is the Geth that should be sacrificed. That is forced upon him.

I still see destroy as the only way to guarantee a win.

Control leaves the Reapers intact and worst case scenario the Reapings continue tomorrow (loss of the geth times X). At the very least it, by the Reapers continued existance, guarantees a life which quality is unacceptable.

Synthesis definately continues the Reapings albeit at a diminished rate. It also leads to a life with unacceptable quality.

Refuse makes Shepard and everyone else right, but dead.

Compaired to those two destroy is the option that saves as many lives as possible and with as much acceptable quality of life as possible.

[TudorWolf]

So, to not genocide an entire "species", and murder another individual who may well be your friend, you should let another, aggressor, species genocide them instead. And in the process murder yet another possibly-friend.

The series has gone out of its way to make the point that synthetics are as valid a form a life as anything, but hey, Shepard gets to live, all other considerations are secondary, right? Bioware seriously screwed the pooch on that one. Giving the option to save Shepard was always going to champion that option, consequences be damned

[IllusiveManJr]

This took off.

[spirosz]

IllusiveManJr wrote...

Geth are just machines, tools, nothing more.

They are much more. 

[OdanUrr]

TudorWolf wrote...

Giving the option to save Shepard was always going to champion that option, consequences be damned

Pretty much. Personally, I think Destroy would've been better if you were able to destroy the Reapers but had to sacrifice Earth in the process.

[shumworld]

Well it depends on how you rp the game IMO. If you played it with the idea of not discovering that AI and Geth are not considered a Sentient species then by all means go with the Destroy ending.

Some people see the control ending as Shepard turning evil since he became one with the reapers, but guys like me see it as Shepard becoming the protector of the galaxy.

[78stonewobble]

shumworld wrote...

Well it depends on how you rp the game IMO. If you played it with the idea of not discovering that AI and Geth are not considered a Sentient species then by all means go with the Destroy ending.

Some people see the control ending as Shepard turning evil since he became one with the reapers, but guys like me see it as Shepard becoming the protector of the galaxy.

Partially for me the reasoning for picking destroy is that the geth are only part of the galaxy, have their own definition of acceptable quality of life and like most people fighting the reapers actively as willingness to sacrifice themselves to ensure a galaxy free of reaper control.

Control does seem attractive, but to bet the life of every sentient being on a human being wholly incorruptable?

Theres a reason we decided that powerfull stuff like the usage of nuclear weapons probably shouldn't be in the hands of one person.

[IC-07]

Or install MEHEM.
PROFIT, baby.

[ghost9191]

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."

not sure but i don't think this thread is 100% serious, but that is just me


and 98% sure shep doesn't survive though again , just me

Modifié par ghost9191, 15 mars 2013 - 02:31 .

[Strangewrex]

Genocide would imply the eradication of an entire species or race.
The Geth are Programs uploaded onto mobile platforms.
They aren't a species. Not Genocide.

[KoorahUK]

ghost9191 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."

not sure but i don't think this thread is 100% serious, but that is just me


and 98% sure shep doesn't survive though again , just me

Clearly started as a troll thread, escalated into a genuine discussion. Who'd a thunk it?

[CronoDragoon]

I've thought about doing this - not to alleviate ending guilt but because it makes the conflict more compelling on Rannoch.

But ultimately killing the geth on Rannoch is worse than doing so with the Crucible, at least if you have the persuasion option for peace unlocked. On Rannoch, you have a clear path to a better future for everyone involved. With the Crucible, the other choices are arguably worse depending on your morality or view of future consequences.

In other words, with the Crucible, you have to destroy the geth because the alternatives are worse. On Rannoch, you cannot use such a justification.

Also, getting people to stop using the word genocide isn't about handwaving moral concerns; it's more about getting people to accurately assess the moral concerns of the choice without spraying loaded words everywhere. It's hard to have an intelligent analysis of the endings when every third word is "genocide" or "rape."

[The Heretic of Time]

People, if you side with the quarians on Rannich, YOU don't commit genocide, the quarians do, and only because the geth don't surrender.

So just side with the quarians on Rannoch, and your Paragon hands will be clean. Now you can happily choose Destroy without genocide.