4712 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

remydat wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused fo a lie of ommission how is this passage any different.  If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarian makes no sense.

Read the quote-laden post above. If you're going to ignore any part of canon that clashes with your argument, this discussion serves no purpose.

What I am ignoring?  People tried to tell me this alleged passage was suppose to be Drew giving us an objective view of the history based on his role as storytelling.

So I will ask a simple question.  Please quote me a passage from the above that is favorable to the Geth?  You can't claim this is the true history of the conflict when nothing in the passage tells us the Geth side of the story.  

I'm pointing you to something on this page.

Drew's book isn't the only place this is brought up. It's in the dialogue of all three games.

[Xilizhra]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

"Why not? Our fleet is massive. We can assist Shepard-Commander's fight against the Old Machines... if the Creators no longer threaten us."
~ Geth VI, on the prospect of exterminating the Quarians, making no distinction between sympathizers and aggressors on the fleet

Well, for all intents and purposes, it's not relevant. Evidently, there aren't any sympathizers who are manning the guns on all of the ships currently trying to exterminate the geth. If the admirals refuse to consider a ceasefire, there's really no other logical response from the geth.

It's relevant because this is the same attitude that guided the Geth's actions in the Morning War. The Quarians weren't on ships then. Indiscriminate slaughter was the Geth's entire playbook - hence the "toxins" the Geth are still cleaning up. The Quarians press the attack because they have every reason to expect the Geth to try to kill them all - and if you have the VI with you, they're absolutely right. They've never seen mercy from the Geth - according to the Geth themselves, not pursuing the fleeing stragglers was not an act of mercy. If it's actually communicated to the Quarians that the upload is taking place and that the Geth will let them live, an offer they never received before and had no reason to expect, they stand down.

They value survival more than revenge.

Actually, I think Shepard brought up the whole thing with the geth not wanting to kill all the quarians to Gerrel before and he brushed it off. IIRC. Gerrel, at the very least, wants revenge, and only backs down when the rest of the fleet turns against him.

Either way, if the quarians aren't wrong in that final battle situation, neither are the geth, as both are only trying to survive.

[justafan]

remydat wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused fo a lie of ommission how is this passage any different.  If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarian makes no sense.

Read the quote-laden post above. If you're going to ignore any part of canon that clashes with your argument, this discussion serves no purpose.

What I am ignoring?  People tried to tell me this alleged passage was suppose to be Drew giving us an objective view of the history based on his role as storytelling.

So I will ask a simple question.  Please quote me a passage from the above that is favorable to the Geth?  You can't claim this is the true history of the conflict when nothing in the passage tells us the Geth side of the story.  

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Modifié par justafan, 19 mars 2013 - 02:27 .

[remydat]

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused of a lie of ommission, how is this passage any different.? If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarians makes no sense.

So let me get this straight, it is now the fictional Quarian's fault that the real-life human Drew Karpyshyn didn't include one fact about the Morning War in a particular paragraph of his book.  And this therefor makes the Quarians liars?  A fact I might add that is fairly common knowledge and not denied by a single Quarian and outright stated in the codex.

No I am saying people telling me that this was intended to be an objective passage are incorrect.  Again, find me anything that tells us the Geth side.  If a writer writes a passage that leaves out a fairly significant fact ie who started the war and gives the impression that one side is evil then how can people claim it is objective?

And I will ask a question that I don't know the answer too since I didn't read the book.  Does the book at any point tell us that the Quarians started the war?  If so where?

[remydat]

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused fo a lie of ommission how is this passage any different.  If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarian makes no sense.

Read the quote-laden post above. If you're going to ignore any part of canon that clashes with your argument, this discussion serves no purpose.

What I am ignoring?  People tried to tell me this alleged passage was suppose to be Drew giving us an objective view of the history based on his role as storytelling.

So I will ask a simple question.  Please quote me a passage from the above that is favorable to the Geth?  You can't claim this is the true history of the conflict when nothing in the passage tells us the Geth side of the story.  

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

[DeinonSlayer]

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused of a lie of ommission, how is this passage any different.? If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarians makes no sense.

So let me get this straight, it is now the fictional Quarian's fault that the real-life human Drew Karpyshyn didn't include one fact about the Morning War in a particular paragraph of his book.  And this therefor makes the Quarians liars?  A fact I might add that is fairly common knowledge and not denied by a single Quarian and outright stated in the codex.

No I am saying people telling me that this was intended to be an objective passage are incorrect.  Again, find me anything that tells us the Geth side.  If a writer writes a passage that leaves out a fairly significant fact ie who started the war and gives the impression that one side is evil then how can people claim it is objective?

And I will ask a question that I don't know the answer too since I didn't read the book.  Does the book at any point tell us that the Quarians started the war?  If so where?

We're told in ME1, by Drew, several times, that the Quarians started the war. It doesn't invalidate anything in that passage because the passage never says the Geth started it. We're given pieces of the truth. Later pieces don't invalidate what we're told earlier because they fit together to make a larger picture. The Geth started by defending themselves, then cranked into overkill mode and ultimately wiped out 99% of the Quarian species in a single year. In that sense, the description in the book is accurate - they turned on the Quarian species as a whole. ME3 dialogue, post-Rannoch, between EDI and Shepard still describes it that way. And you still haven't addressed the post I pointed you at.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 19 mars 2013 - 02:39 .

[Da Don Giovanni]

remydat wrote...

If a writer writes a passage that leaves out a fairly significant fact ie who started the war and gives the impression that one side is evil then how can people claim it is objective?

This ^.

[justafan]

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Modifié par justafan, 19 mars 2013 - 02:45 .

[remydat]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I'm pointing you to something on this page.

Drew's book isn't the only place this is brought up. It's in the dialogue of all three games.

You mean these statements.

1.  "The Geth killed billions and drove my people from our homeworld. Most Quarians believe we have paid adequately for our mistake."
~ Tali, ME1 elevator conversation

Tells me nothing except the Geth were better at killing Quarians than Quarians were at killing them.

2. "The Quarian side of the story is common knowledge, but nobody knows the Geth side."
"It is largely the same."
~ Shepard and Legion, ME2 Normandy discussion

Again tells me nothing except Legion is admitting they killed billions.  I don't think that is in dispute.

3.  "We accept the Creators' hate. We did them great harm in the Morning War."
~ Legion, ME2 Normandy discussion

Again tells me nothing except Legion is admitting they killed billions.  I don't think that is in dispute.  In fact show me where the Quarians said they did the Geth great harm in trying to exterminate them?

4. "The Rachni consumed Salarian colonies. The Quarians endured the unthinkable slaughter of the Morning War."
~ From an ANN editorial heard in the Spectre office after Thessia

You understand an editorial is an opinion.  An organic one at that.

5.  "The Quarians' historical error was not making the Geth enough like them. Units with networked intelligences will trend toward cooperation for mutual benefit, but units with central heuristics establishing an individual personality, such as myself, develop preferences. These preferences form attachments that keep my calculations from devaluing the worth of the lives aboard the Normandy."
"You're saying the Geth turned on the Quarians because they aren't individuals?"
~ EDI and Shepard, post-Rannoch

Should I ignore all the examples of organics devaluing life?  Cerberus devalues life.  The Salarian Dalatross who didn't want the Krogons to be healed devalues life.  Why are we acting like devaluing life is just a synthetic problem?

6.  "Why not? Our fleet is massive. We can assist Shepard-Commander's fight against the Old Machines... if the Creators no longer threaten us."
~ Geth VI, on the prospect of exterminating the Quarians, making no distinction between sympathizers and aggressors on the fleet

Did the Quarians make a distinction between sympathizers and aggressors?  Geth VI is no different than Admiral Gherel or Xen.  What does that prove except the Geth are like any sentient species?

[Legion of 1337]

Holy ****, this blew up quickly. Might as well jump back in.

To reiterate:

Regardless of how it's the Quarians' fault for starting a war, as I have said, the loss of an organics species is a far greater blow to the galaxy than the loss of a synthetic one, for it is organics that advance civilization the most - indeed, they create synthetic life in the first place. Unlike synthetics, organics cannot be replaced if destroyed - I will not annihilate them just because their leaders are fools.

[DeinonSlayer]

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true.

Exactly. Was Drew supposed to meander into martial actions, outside legal and economic pressures, who fired the first shot against whom, when, and where, Quarian internal politics, contemporary Council politics et al? There's no mention of the Council stripping the Quarians of their embassy and condemning them to the black for three centuries in that passage, either. We don't learn about the Heretic schism until the second game, or the Quarians' physiological dependency on their native plant life until the third. The passage in the book isn't meant to give the full story in one go.

[justafan]

remydat wrote...


Again tells me nothing except Legion is admitting they killed billions.  I don't think that is in dispute.  In fact show me where the Quarians said they did the Geth great harm in trying to exterminate them?

Korris: "But like her father, she wants nothing more than the destruction of the Geth... The people we created.  The people we wronged"

Tali: "The Geth drove us from our homeworld!"

Korris:  "Of course they did, we tried to kill them".
 -ME2

Modifié par justafan, 19 mars 2013 - 03:08 .

[remydat]

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Do you think people neglect to point out the attempted genocide of Jews when they discuss WWII?

Who would you think was at fault if you read this passage? Be honest.  The passage is misleading at best as it makes it sound like the Quarians were doomed to suffer at the hands of their evil machines.  They were not.  They could have avoided their fate by choosing not to attempt to kill their creation.  That is pretty central in understanding the conflict.

And you ignored my question.  Is there any passage in the book that tells us who started the war?

[remydat]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

And yet this passage clearly ignores that fact.  If Legion can be accused of a lie of ommission, how is this passage any different.? If anyone read this without knowing the history they would think the evil machines caused the war.  So the passage is a lie of ommission which calls the entire passage into question.  That is the point.  If Drew was suppose to be writing a true account of what happened leaving out the fact the war was started by the Quarians makes no sense.

So let me get this straight, it is now the fictional Quarian's fault that the real-life human Drew Karpyshyn didn't include one fact about the Morning War in a particular paragraph of his book.  And this therefor makes the Quarians liars?  A fact I might add that is fairly common knowledge and not denied by a single Quarian and outright stated in the codex.

No I am saying people telling me that this was intended to be an objective passage are incorrect.  Again, find me anything that tells us the Geth side.  If a writer writes a passage that leaves out a fairly significant fact ie who started the war and gives the impression that one side is evil then how can people claim it is objective?

And I will ask a question that I don't know the answer too since I didn't read the book.  Does the book at any point tell us that the Quarians started the war?  If so where?

We're told in ME1, by Drew, several times, that the Quarians started the war. It doesn't invalidate anything in that passage because the passage never says the Geth started it. We're given pieces of the truth. Later pieces don't invalidate what we're told earlier because they fit together to make a larger picture. The Geth started by defending themselves, then cranked into overkill mode and ultimately wiped out 99% of the Quarian species in a single year. In that sense, the description in the book is accurate - they turned on the Quarian species as a whole. ME3 dialogue, post-Rannoch, between EDI and Shepard still describes it that way. And you still haven't addressed the post I pointed you at.

Look people brought up this passage.  Without reading the passage, I said are we sure the writer was not writing things from an organic perspective.  People assured me that he wasn't.  After reading the passage it is clear to me he was.  Again, point me to anything that is favorable to the Geth?  This reads like organic propanganda. 

You can't use words like genocide to describe one group and say fears of organics were validated by the Geth and leave out the most critical fact that makes that narrative problematic.  

[DeinonSlayer]

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Do you think people neglect to point out the attempted genocide of Jews when they discuss WWII?

Who would you think was at fault if you read this passage? Be honest.  The passage is misleading at best as it makes it sound like the Quarians were doomed to suffer at the hands of their evil machines.  They were not.  They could have avoided their fate by choosing not to attempt to kill their creation.  That is pretty central in understanding the conflict.

And you ignored my question.  Is there any passage in the book that tells us who started the war?

I knew this would go Godwin eventually...

The Holocaust was a real-life event, and it was one-way. And that's all we're going to say on the subject.

The Morning War is fictional. It was an attempted genocide, which was responded to with a successful one. There are people here who deny the first was a genocide, saying the Geth were (or are) not alive. There are others who pretend the second wasn't one, despite acknowledgement on both sides that it was.

See my earlier example about the Asari and the family of Salarians. That's my personal take on how to judge both parties, taking all the facts into consideration. Everyone has their own interpretation of the conflict because Bioware deliberately left things vague. A writer came on the boards once and said that - they wanted us to have discussions like this.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 19 mars 2013 - 03:01 .

[justafan]

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Do you think people neglect to point out the attempted genocide of Jews when they discuss WWII?

Who would you think was at fault if you read this passage? Be honest.  The passage is misleading at best as it makes it sound like the Quarians were doomed to suffer at the hands of their evil machines.  They were not.  They could have avoided their fate by choosing not to attempt to kill their creation.  That is pretty central in understanding the conflict.

And you ignored my question.  Is there any passage in the book that tells us who started the war?

And you missed the point of my post.  Often there is no "group X started the war".  If there is any war in history where one side is totally at fault, I have yet to hear of it.

Edited to avoid Godwin.

Modifié par justafan, 19 mars 2013 - 03:13 .

[N7 Drone]

I'm kinda of confuse about some of the points that Quarians supporters make.

A) The Geth kill 99% of quarians, the Geth show them no mercy. Okay?
(*coughs* The Geth let 1% of Quarians get away even known the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth 100%). When Quarians first attack the Geth, the Quarians didn't show the Geth mercy, even known the Geth did nothing wrong in the first place. So why should the Geth so any Quarian mercy?

The Geth can be rebuild. Okay? Who gonna rebuild the Geth? The Quarians (They gonna rebuild the Geth after being in war with them?) You (Your Shepard?. Some you don't even see Geth as equals. Some of you hate the Geth. Etc)?

C). The Geth perform actions that benefit/help them to surive their race but could ****ed up the surviual of other races. Okay? First what race dosen't do that --> "perform actions that benefit their race that may not benefit other races". Second, some of you cleary state that you care less about the Geth (Lower lifeform, nothing but robots and etc.) but somehow you expect the Geth to care about you and organic life. Really?

[remydat]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

IIRC, the novel had zero Geth characters but a number of Quarian ones.  Drew's role as an author was not to give us a detailed description of the Morning War, but to give the reader context into the Quarian's situation in the galaxy.  If there had been a Geth character that was more than target practice, there would have been greater context given.  As is, he gives a perfectly accurate (and canon) description of what caused the Quarians to become the nomads they are, which is an important part of the story.

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Do you think people neglect to point out the attempted genocide of Jews when they discuss WWII?

Who would you think was at fault if you read this passage? Be honest.  The passage is misleading at best as it makes it sound like the Quarians were doomed to suffer at the hands of their evil machines.  They were not.  They could have avoided their fate by choosing not to attempt to kill their creation.  That is pretty central in understanding the conflict.

And you ignored my question.  Is there any passage in the book that tells us who started the war?

I knew this would go Godwin eventually...

The Holocaust was a real-life event, and it was one-way. And that's all we're going to say on the subject.

The Morning War is fictional. It was an attempted genocide, which was responded to with a successful one. There are people here who deny the first was a genocide, saying the Geth were (or are) not alive. There are others who pretend the second wasn't one, despite acknowledgement on both sides that it was.

See my earlier example about the Asari and the family of Salarians. That's my personal take on how to judge both parties, taking all the facts into consideration. Everyone has their own interpretation of the conflict because Bioware deliberately left things vague. A writer came on the boards once and said that - they wanted us to have discussions like this.

Again, I asked a point blank question to you guys.  Here it is again,

remydat wrote...What novel are you referring to.  My point is unless that statement comes fom the writer in his role as all seeing eye of the universe he creates then it is merely a reflection of the organic position.  We don't really get the Geth side of things until Legion appears.  Before that, all we are seeing is the organic view of synthetic life.

That is what I said back on page 22.  You guys acted like this was a statement from the writer in his capacity as all seeing eye.  It is not.  All seeing eye doesn't leave out the fact that the Quarians attacked first.  

So I doin't need you trying to justify why he left this out.  I am asking you an honest question.  Can that passage be said to give us the Geth side of things or is it a reflection of the organic position?  The entire passage is basically telling us why organics fear synthetics.

And Legion does not agree that it is genocide.  He agrees they harmed the creators which is obvious.  I don't think Legion has any concept of genocide.  Again, show me where the Quarians taught the Geth any notion of what chemical warfare, genocide or other war crimes were.?

Do you think a newly sentient species just magically knows what is right and wrong when it comes to trying to prevent youself from being killed?  Those are human concepts that the Quarians never bother to teach their slaves since they wanted to kill them.  Back in the day slaughtering your enemy was perfectly acceptable to humans.  We had to LEARN that it was wrong.  The Geth had no such LEARNING because the Quarians never gave it to them.  These were not militant platforms.  They were units designed to do slave labor ie farming, mining, etc. that had to wage a war without having been programmed to do so.

[DeinonSlayer]

N7 Drone wrote...

I'm kinda of confuse about some of the points that Quarians supporters make.

A) The Geth kill 99% of quarians, the Geth show them no mercy. Okay?
(*coughs* The Geth let 1% of Quarians get away even known the Quarians wanted to get rid of the Geth 100%). When Quarians first attack the Geth, the Quarians didn't show the Geth mercy, even known the Geth did nothing wrong in the first place. So why should the Geth so any Quarian mercy?

Not all Quarians participated in the attack on the Geth. Some actively resisted it, an indeterminate number of them were killed, but even the Geth don't claim all of them were. The Geth deemed the entire species a threat, and acted to eliminate that "threat" until it ceased to be a threat, ultimately killing everyone who couldn't secure passage off-world. The fact that they didn't pursue the stragglers doesn't change this.

The Geth can be rebuild. Okay? Who gonna rebuild the Geth? The Quarians (They gonna rebuild the Geth after being in war with them?) You (Your Shepard?. Some you don't even see Geth as equals. Some of you hate the Geth. Etc)?

Not touching this. I acknowledge that whatever is rebuilt is not going to be the same as what was destroyed.

C). The Geth perform actions that benefit/help them to surive their race but could ****ed up the surviual of other races. Okay? First what race dosen't do that --> "perform actions that benefit their race that may not benefit other races". Second, some of you cleary state that you care less about the Geth (Lower lifeform, nothing but robots and etc.) but somehow you expect the Geth to care about you and organic life. Really?

First off, no other race sided with the Reapers, duress or no. Secondly, Geth sapience actually is a complicated topic. One runtime has an intellect on par with a worker ant. 100 go in a standard combat chassis, and are no more intelligent than a varren. 1183 in one platform produce a clearly intelligent entity (Legion), but if you told those same 1183 runtimes to operate a cruiser on their own, we'd be down to varren intelligence again, if that. Third, the Geth really didn't care about organic life until very recently, as evidenced by their actions for the last three hundred years. The door swings both ways.

[remydat]

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

justafan wrote...

remydat wrote...

Which I believe is what I speculated ie this account is told from an organic perspective.  Again, I will ask is it mentioned at any point that the Quarians started the war?  If the answer is no then claiming this as objective truth is dubious.  I think it is a farily significant omission to not tell us the Quarians started the war.

Every time I talk about the consequences of WWI, I usually leave out the "A disgruntled Serbian Nationalist ambushed the crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of a desire to create a greater Serbian State.  This led Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum they knew Serbia would refuse.  This in turn caused Serbia's ally Russia to begin mobilization, which caused Germany to mobilize as well, despite direct correspondence between cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas, and when Austria declared war, caused these nations to enter war with one another as well, eventually drawing France and the UK in as well because of a complicated system of alliances".  No, usually I would say, "the war started after an assassination of the Austrian heir which caused alliances to declare war", and THEN skip to what I was really trying to say about consequences.  If I want to talk about the consequences of some event, I will give some historical context, but I won't write an essay about it.

The point is, the objective truth is often REALLY complicated and when you are trying to make a separate point and not write a history paper, you generalize the basics.  Did Austria start the war by declaring war on Serbia, or was Serbia responsible due to the actions their terrorists?  Was it someone elses fault? the allies post-war believed it was Germany's.  The same can be said of the Quarian/Geth conflict, the truth is a lot more complicated, there is no "And then the Quarians did X and started the war and it's all their fault".  So Drew skipped the history lecture because that was not what he set out to describe, he wanted to give context as to where the Quarians were NOW, so he gave the sparknotes version of their history.  It leaves out some details, but it is 100% true and makes no claims as to who was in the right or wrong.

Do you think people neglect to point out the attempted genocide of Jews when they discuss WWII?

Who would you think was at fault if you read this passage? Be honest.  The passage is misleading at best as it makes it sound like the Quarians were doomed to suffer at the hands of their evil machines.  They were not.  They could have avoided their fate by choosing not to attempt to kill their creation.  That is pretty central in understanding the conflict.

And you ignored my question.  Is there any passage in the book that tells us who started the war?

And you missed the point of my post.  Often there is no "group X started the war".  If there is any war in history where one side is totally at fault, I have yet to hear of it.

Edited to avoid Godwin.

Umm when you start a war that the other side did not want to cover up your programming fu*k up then it is your fault.  How much times does it need to be said.  The Geth did nothing wrong.  They were designed to serve and basically became too good at their job because the Quarians fu**ed up.  Let me repeat.  THE QUARIANS FU**ED UP.  So to correct their mistake the QUARIANS TRIED TO KILL THE GETH.

The Geth BEGGED THE QUARIANS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAD TO BE KILLED.  The Geth SURRENDERED INSTEAD OF LETTING QUARIANS SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR CAUSE BE KILLED.  They were killed by militant Quarians anyway.  Finally the Geth decided to defend themselves and these Geth with no understanding of the rules of war attacked.

So who is at fault?  The answer is obvious.  The stupid Quarians, end of story.

[DeinonSlayer]

remydat wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I knew this would go Godwin eventually...

The Holocaust was a real-life event, and it was one-way. And that's all we're going to say on the subject.

The Morning War is fictional. It was an attempted genocide, which was responded to with a successful one. There are people here who deny the first was a genocide, saying the Geth were (or are) not alive. There are others who pretend the second wasn't one, despite acknowledgement on both sides that it was.

See my earlier example about the Asari and the family of Salarians. That's my personal take on how to judge both parties, taking all the facts into consideration. Everyone has their own interpretation of the conflict because Bioware deliberately left things vague. A writer came on the boards once and said that - they wanted us to have discussions like this.

Again, I asked a point blank question to you guys.  Here it is again,

remydat wrote...What novel are you referring to.  My point is unless that statement comes fom the writer in his role as all seeing eye of the universe he creates then it is merely a reflection of the organic position.  We don't really get the Geth side of things until Legion appears.  Before that, all we are seeing is the organic view of synthetic life.

That is what I said back on page 22.  You guys acted like this was a statement from the writer in his capacity as all seeing eye.  It is not.  All seeing eye doesn't leave out the fact that the Quarians attacked first.  

So I doin't need you trying to justify why he left this out.  I am asking you an honest question.  Can that passage be said to give us the Geth side of things or is it a reflection of the organic position?  The entire passage is basically telling us why organics fear synthetics.

I already told you. We're given the truth in pieces, from the perspective of different characters and cultures. How we fit them together to form the complete picture was deliberately left up to us. That passage makes no mention of the Council stripping the Quarians of their embassy and basically forcing them to wander, either. No mention is made of the Heretic schism until ME2. We get it in chunks.

And Legion does not agree that it is genocide.  He agrees they harmed the creators which is obvious.  I don't think Legion has any concept of genocide.  Again, show me where the Quarians taught the Geth any notion of what chemical warfare, genocide or other war crimes were.?

Geth don't see what they did as genocide. Some Quarians don't see what they did as genocide. It doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what both sides did: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

Do you think a newly sentient species just magically knows what is right and wrong when it comes to trying to prevent youself from being killed?  Those are human concepts that the Quarians never bother to teach their slaves since they wanted to kill them.  Back in the day slaughtering your enemy was perfectly acceptable to humans.  We had to LEARN that it was wrong.  The Geth had no such LEARNING because the Quarians never gave it to them.  These were not militant platforms.  They were units designed to do slave labor ie farming, mining, etc. that had to wage a war without having been programmed to do so.

https://lh6.ggpht.com/avN75pqn1zbEpXKM86PAV0ul8HXxb1wZp-4WeBHmZllvMBzliduEm48ztMqCDZY74OFs=w705

Look. You and I clearly have very different interpretations of this. I look at the Geth VI and see that it has learned absolutely nothing despite having lived for three hundred years, watching - and I am perfectly willing to hold it accountable for its crimes, past and present. If a human is a sociopathic criminal, I don't take pity on account of their upbringing - their actions are what define them. I only hold the Quarians accountable for what the current generation has done - not stuff that happened generations before any of them were born. If I can make peace, I will: Legion wants to atone for past offenses, and I do believe the Quarians need to learn from their ancestors' mistakes. I detest that dubiously-trustworthy Reaper code which we aren't permitted to question is a needed part of that equation, but I won't deny them both that opportunity. If I can't make peace, I side with the Quarians - I won't condemn millions of innocents to save a parolee or an unrepentent killer. You have a different take on this, and that's your right. The writers wanted us to speculate about these things, and people will inevitably reach different conclusions.

Now, I need to get something to eat, so I'm going to sign off for now. I might be back on later.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 19 mars 2013 - 03:50 .

[CronoDragoon]

remydat wrote...

That is what I said back on page 22.  You guys acted like this was a statement from the writer in his capacity as all seeing eye.  It is not.  All seeing eye doesn't leave out the fact that the Quarians attacked first.  

That the quarians attacked first is common knowledge and acknowledged by both sides. A full account of the Morning War would completely derail the book, and so he gives you a portion of what happened. But what is said happened, happened. That's why it's the all-seeing eye. He's giving you backstory.

In fact, the entire friggin book is backstory. The books are meant to be supplemental to the games, and in the games you are told numerous times by quarians that they started the war.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 mars 2013 - 03:49 .

[tevix]

What the heck, I'll throw in a random tidbit just for fun.

1) The quarians tried to exterminate the geth. The geth in turn attempted (and VERY nearly succeded) genocide against the quarians.

If you succeed in stopping someone from harming you but then continue to inflict wanton harm on them, you are now them. You are a hypocrite. The geth became hypocrites. The quarians at least are up front about everything and hold no double standard.

2) The geth operate by consensus. The "heretics" exist because the "geth" allowed those runtimes that were arguing to side with the reapers leave. They did not have to let them go to kill others, but they did. Thus the geth as a whole are responsible for killing harmless diplomats.

3) The geth deemed galactic genocide just to guarantee their survival was ok. That makes them the enemy. That also proves Legion is not an entity of it's word. By using the reaper code to upgrade his race he is backtracking on his own beliefs.

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

S.A.K wrote...

Oh and btw, if I am not mistake, Geth wouldn't be killed in destroy ending without the reaper code, because they are not true AIs. Without reaper code, Quarians can easily beat the reapers. Thats why they had to run to the reapers for help save their sorry asses.
Anyway, taking the Geth to fight the reapers, who has untold hacking abilities would be a pretty bad idea.

Of course the Quarians can win against false AI.

You could beat up your computer...however, if your computer gets true AI awareness, it will break you down on an emotion level by posting your naked pictures on the internet. I'm kidding, but you never know .

Lets face it, the only reason why anyone would pick Quarian is if Tali is Shepard's waifu. In an actual military scenario, the Geth will be more versatile. Simple.

[justafan]

remydat wrote.

Umm when you start a war that the other side did not want to cover up your programming fu*k up then it is your fault.  How much times does it need to be said.  The Geth did nothing wrong.  They were designed to serve and basically became too good at their job because the Quarians fu**ed up.  Let me repeat.  THE QUARIANS FU**ED UP.  So to correct their mistake the QUARIANS TRIED TO KILL THE GETH.

The Geth BEGGED THE QUARIANS TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAD TO BE KILLED.  The Geth SURRENDERED INSTEAD OF LETTING QUARIANS SYMPATHETIC TO THEIR CAUSE BE KILLED.  They were killed by militant Quarians anyway.  Finally the Geth decided to defend themselves and these Geth with no understanding of the rules of war attacked.

So who is at fault?  The answer is obvious.  The stupid Quarians, end of story.

You have clearly not been reading the past 40 pages.  To paraphrase, the Quarians were under intense pressure to avoid creating AI.  They did not believe they had created AI, and when the Geth showed signs of going beyond their programming, the Quarians were compelled by Council law to destroy them.  One thing led to another, and it became clear that the only way to stop the Geth was to destroy their systems, the Geth responded to violence with violence, and before long, the war escalated until it was a full blown conflict with 99% percent of the Quarian species being killed.

Did the war start when they tried to deactivate what they believed were non-sentient Geth?  Did the war truly start whent he Geth fought back?  Or did the war start proper when multiple colonies became involved and civilians began to be killed.  Who is at fault for the consequences?  You blame an entire species for the actions of a few.  There is plenty of blame to go around, and no side is innocent.

Modifié par justafan, 19 mars 2013 - 04:22 .