428 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

chemiclord wrote...

And how are you a war criminal choosing Control, again?

There are two things that give me pause regarding Control.

1. We see multiple instances of attempting to alter the minds of others. It backfires every single time, even for Shep on Legion's LM.

2. It's still using the Reapers as tools. I'd prefer to have Shepalyst's one and only command be "do as you please" but that's not what we're given.

[SpamBot2000]

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Because a crime has occurred only when there has been a trial? 

[chemiclord]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Because a crime has occurred only when there has been a trial? 

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

[SpamBot2000]

chemiclord wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Because a crime has occurred only when there has been a trial? 

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

It's stupid to want to finish the game without feeling like a war criminal?

That argument has never been about legal repercussions.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 18 mai 2013 - 07:35 .

[KaiserShep]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Because a crime has occurred only when there has been a trial? 

I was joking, but I don't think that this would actually qualify as a "war crime", given the circumstances. I didn't feel so much like a war criminal, but rather someone who got put in a very crappy position to pick very crappy options.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 mai 2013 - 07:39 .

[dreamgazer]

chemiclord wrote...

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

I don't think the people upset over "war crimes" are concerned about whether Shepard would actually have to deal with being charged, only that the situation crosses that ethical boundary. 

[jtav]

The "war crime" argument rests on the answer to the question: "Is destroying Reapers and the resulting collateral damage necessary to stop the harvest?" If you see the other two options as evil by their very nature or ineffective, then the answer may be yes.

[Tron Mega]

AresKeith wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Phatose wrote...

[...] according to Christianty, everybody is worth forgiving.

Most Religions share that theme.  And most people don't live up to it.

[...] of course most people don't live up to it, because we view them as guidelines which is what they actually are

Some people can most certainly live up to it, but they are exceptional people.

I stopped reading right here, but I'm assuming somewhere below you insulted me by saying monster, luddite, or other words

i stop reading at 'auld wulf'

[chemiclord]

dreamgazer wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

I don't think the people upset over "war crimes" are concerned about whether Shepard would actually have to deal with being charged, only that the situation crosses that ethical boundary. 

In that case, damn near every military decision ever made crosses that ethical boundary.  Shepard, in all endings, make what he/she thinks is the best choice he/she can given the options and the situation.  If that's a "war crime", then we need to see a VERY long line at the Hague for decisions made over the last 100 some odd years alone.

[IanPolaris]

chemiclord wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

No one will try you in the space Hague for destroying edi and the geth.

Because a crime has occurred only when there has been a trial? 

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

No it's not.  Being a war criminal is not about going to trial.  You either commit genocide (Destroy), you enslave the galaxy (Control), or you do Mass Eugenics on the whole Galaxy (Synthesis).

How is that not "pick your warcrime"?

-Polaris

[AresKeith]

jtav wrote...

The "war crime" argument rests on the answer to the question: "Is destroying Reapers and the resulting collateral damage necessary to stop the harvest?" If you see the other two options as evil by their very nature or ineffective, then the answer may be yes.

That's the actually question

[SpamBot2000]

chemiclord wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

No.  But I also don't think any Space Hague would find Shepard guilty of any choice given the scenario presented.  The entire "war crime" argument is pretty stupid.

I don't think the people upset over "war crimes" are concerned about whether Shepard would actually have to deal with being charged, only that the situation crosses that ethical boundary. 

In that case, damn near every military decision ever made crosses that ethical boundary.  Shepard, in all endings, make what he/she thinks is the best choice he/she can given the options and the situation.  If that's a "war crime", then we need to see a VERY long line at the Hague for decisions made over the last 100 some odd years alone.

Starting with Henry "Hank" Kissinger, preferably. He hasn't been looking so hot lately.

[IanPolaris]

chemiclord wrote...

In that case, damn near every military decision ever made crosses that ethical boundary.  Shepard, in all endings, make what he/she thinks is the best choice he/she can given the options and the situation.  If that's a "war crime", then we need to see a VERY long line at the Hague for decisions made over the last 100 some odd years alone.

The entire conflict is contrived to make Shepard make the ethically darkest choice possible just to win.  This is my criticism of the writing.  This is not bittersweet.  It's just grimdark, and that's never been to this point what ME3 was about.  "Sacrifice" <> Grimdark.  See DAO for genuine choices that require sacrifice done right.

-Polaris

[jtav]

No, even the Reapers are part of the equation. I have to consider the good of the minds trapped within as well, and I'm unwilling to automatically say they're better off dead, though their death may be the best outcome.

And Paragon Control doesn't enslave anybody.

[dreamgazer]

The Reapers also aren't the darkspawn, and Mass Effect isn't a medieval sword-'n-sorcery fantasy.

[AresKeith]

jtav wrote...

No, even the Reapers are part of the equation. I have to consider the good of the minds trapped within as well, and I'm unwilling to automatically say they're better off dead, though their death may be the best outcome.

And Paragon Control doesn't enslave anybody.

Ask yourself this then, would you want to have your mind twisted and controlled to form a Reaper or become a Husk

[Arcian]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

I do not object to Synthesis because it's immoral.

I object to Synthesis because it's nonsensical. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it's "not even wrong".

This one concurs.

[jtav]

AresKeith wrote...

jtav wrote...

No, even the Reapers are part of the equation. I have to consider the good of the minds trapped within as well, and I'm unwilling to automatically say they're better off dead, though their death may be the best outcome.

And Paragon Control doesn't enslave anybody.

Ask yourself this then, would you want to have your mind twisted and controlled to form a Reaper or become a Husk

No, I wouldn't, but it's already happened. I won't assume they find their existence unendurable, because I won't assume anyone is better off dead.

[Ticonderoga117]

jtav wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

jtav wrote...

No, even the Reapers are part of the equation. I have to consider the good of the minds trapped within as well, and I'm unwilling to automatically say they're better off dead, though their death may be the best outcome.

And Paragon Control doesn't enslave anybody.

Ask yourself this then, would you want to have your mind twisted and controlled to form a Reaper or become a Husk

No, I wouldn't, but it's already happened. I won't assume they find their existence unendurable, because I won't assume anyone is better off dead.

So you would be perfectly fine watching as your new body, that you can't control, goes around and kills off millions every 50K years or so, and there was not a single thing you can do to stop it?

Please, I'd rather be dead.

That is a fate worse than death.

[dreamgazer]

jtav wrote...

No, I wouldn't, but it's already happened. I won't assume they find their existence unendurable, because I won't assume anyone is better off dead.

You can't assume anything about their post-decision, potentially post-Catalyst state of mind.

[chemiclord]

IanPolaris wrote...

The entire conflict is contrived to make Shepard make the ethically darkest choice possible just to win.  This is my criticism of the writing.  This is not bittersweet.  It's just grimdark, and that's never been to this point what ME3 was about.  "Sacrifice" <> Grimdark.  See DAO for genuine choices that require sacrifice done right.

-Polaris

That a different argument entirely though.  No one realistically, in universe, would consider what Shepard did a "war crime"... at least, not if they wanted to sound sane.  I'm sure some nutcases with an axe to grind would TRY... but it wouldn't go anywhere, nor should it.  Presuming Shepard were to have lived, he/she would have no amount of reasoning to justify the decision made, given the situation he/she was presented with (and believe me, everyone and their mother has their reasoning, as we ALL have read).

Criticizing how it's largely out of place given the trilogy thus far?  Sure.  That's a perfectly legitimate critique, and I don't fault you for that opinion.  I personally don't agree with it, but that's just MY opinion.

Modifié par chemiclord, 18 mai 2013 - 08:03 .

[ghost9191]

well

1) synthesis was presented by the catalyst ( writers wrote it yes ) and it did favor synthesis.

2) i think it was more about rejecting the idea of TIM controlling the reapers then the idea of control itself. seeing the lengths TIM went to achieve it and the fact he was a puppet. it would be a bad idea

but you can drop a few lines that suggest you agree with control

[ghost9191]

jtav wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

jtav wrote...

No, even the Reapers are part of the equation. I have to consider the good of the minds trapped within as well, and I'm unwilling to automatically say they're better off dead, though their death may be the best outcome.

And Paragon Control doesn't enslave anybody.

Ask yourself this then, would you want to have your mind twisted and controlled to form a Reaper or become a Husk

No, I wouldn't, but it's already happened. I won't assume they find their existence unendurable, because I won't assume anyone is better off dead.

yeah but that is like saying , because they are already slaves and they don't know better they should stay slaves
same as saying they are better off dead . the thing is you don't know anything about the minds inside the reaper really.
not arguing the choices. or if it is better to kill or keep them enslaved. just that you can't base your choice on that. 

i personally just choose destroy to stop the threat for good ( simplest terms ) , if they are being forced to do it then it is... tragic but that doesnt change what is happening


although ignore me if i completely missed your point:blush:

Modifié par ghost9191, 18 mai 2013 - 08:08 .

[jtav]

Did I say I chose Control? I remain undecided as to what's the best and most ethical choice. But the argument that the Reapers are better off dead is one I can't abide for reasons I won't get into.

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...
That in turn created what fans call an "internal promise" within the game, and they felt that promise was betrayed at the culminating moment of the entire trilogy where said "out" not only wasn't there, but was (theoretically) intentionally DENIED by Walters and Hudson.  Those two then (theorectially) slapped those fans in the face with the extended cut by dangling what seemed to be that "out" with the Refuse option... which instead lead to a crushingly despondent "Reapers win" scenario.

That's the pithiest explanation for the whole "Refuse is a giant middle finger" notion that I've ever seen. Nicely done.