416 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

It's a video game that propped up fascist ideology, forced the player to be a sick monster, and became offensively racist in the last five minutes...

lolwut

You'll have to forgive Bill, the ending broke his mind and shattered his world view.

[Archonsg]

@heretic_hanar

Simply put, when playing as a Renegade, in particular a "Humans-First" hard arse Do what it takes to forward Humanity rise to power, and not "jackass psychotic ahole Shepard, I could essentially play in a morality-vacuum and even complete the game with the original endings (pre or post EC) and it didn't bother me.
Its when I played as a Paragon that the end felt railroading me towards a character that wasn't in character with what I played.

Example. Renegade kills Wrex because its an alien and in Shepard's own words, an animal. His mental state is that *all* Aliens are animals to a degree, and yes including the Asari. They may look human-like, but *they aren't human*. And thus any and all aliens are assets to be used, abused and discarded when no longer needed or prove more trouble than they are worth.

With this in mind, killing the Rachni, the Krogans, shooting Mordin in the back, destroying the Geth, EDI and maybe even the Quarians are all just business. Its war, you use your assets in war and use them for the betterment of the Human race.

The fact that I *can* play as such but not have the same satisfactory end for playing as a Paragon (Paragade really, as *pure* paragon is as ridiculous as *pure* renegade) , and the game (ME3) actually encourages you to go on the Renegade path, makes the whole "morality" paths pointless.

Remember, this is a *game* not sim-life drama where a message of "you can't win without compromising yourself" is shoved down my throat.

[TheRealJayDee]

Yeah, Archonsg, I've been saying the exact same thing for ages: my power hungry "humans are superior to aliens and robots are just things" Shepard is the only one of my characters who'd have a field day with the endings. He'd have a hard time choosing "the best option" and be fine with each, instead of pretty much all my other characters who'd have to decide which choice they see as the "lesser evil". All this supposed "tough moral choices" stuff about the endings simply wouldn't affect him.

"You're just mad that you didn't get a super happy ending!" Nope, but I am kinda weirded out that the only character of mine who actually would get a more or less completely happy and satisfying ending turned out to be my ruthless racist Shepard.

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

My impression was that Paragon choices are all about minimizing short-term losses even if this requires moral compromise; for instance, letting Balak go in BtdS.

How is saving people over catching Balak a moral compromise?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2013 - 10:45 .

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...
How is saving people over catching Balak a moral compromise?

How is letting a bad guy go not a compromise?

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 juin 2013 - 10:47 .

[Bill Casey]

How is it?

[AlanC9]

Archonsg wrote...
With this in mind, killing the Rachni, the Krogans, shooting Mordin in the back, destroying the Geth, EDI and maybe even the Quarians are all just business. Its war, you use your assets in war and use them for the betterment of the Human race.

The fact that I *can* play as such but not have the same satisfactory end for playing as a Paragon (Paragade really, as *pure* paragon is as ridiculous as *pure* renegade) , and the game (ME3) actually encourages you to go on the Renegade path, makes the whole "morality" paths pointless.

Remember, this is a *game* not sim-life drama where a message of "you can't win without compromising yourself" is shoved down my throat.

So the Paragon view that you don't ever have to do such things should be right? Every time?

[chemiclord]

Bill Casey wrote...

How is saving people over catching Balak a moral compromise?

Uh... you... let a guy perfectly willing to throw a ****ing asteroid at a planet walk away... and you honestly have no idea how that decision could potentially bite you (and the galaxy) in the ass?

Really?

Modifié par chemiclord, 03 juin 2013 - 11:22 .

[Bill Casey]

chemiclord wrote...

and you honestly have no idea how that decision could potentially bite you (and the galaxy) in the ass?

I didn't ask how it could bite me in the ass; I asked how it's a moral compromise...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2013 - 11:25 .

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

How is it?

He doesn't face justice for his crimes.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Bill Casey wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

and you honestly have no idea how that decision could potentially bite you (and the galaxy) in the ass?

I didn't ask how it could bite me in the ass; I asked how it's a moral compromise...

Choosing between the certainty of stopping a known terrorist (and causing the deaths of hostages) vs. the uncertainty of his future actions (with live hostages)?

[Bill Casey]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Choosing between the certainty of stopping a known terrorist (and causing the deaths of hostages) vs. the uncertainty of his future actions (with live hostages)?

You're talking about consequenses, not actions...
Failing to stop someone isn't immoral...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2013 - 11:35 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Bill Casey wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Choosing between the certainty of stopping a known terrorist (and causing the deaths of hostages) vs. the uncertainty of his future actions (with live hostages)?

You're talking about consequenses, not actions...
Failing to stop someone isn't immoral...

Choosing not to is.

[jtav]

Especially when the option to arrest him is there and you can be morally certain he'll do it again.

[Bill Casey]

Bull****...

[Nole]

Bill Casey wrote...

Bull****...

So young, so naive.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

jtav wrote...

Especially when the option to arrest him is there and you can be morally certain he'll do it again.

I personally prefer executing him.

"You could have saved those people and you let them die! Who's the real monster!"

"You but you're dead" *BLAM*

[Bill Casey]

Since when is 31 young and Kantian ethics naive?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2013 - 11:58 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

WittingEight65 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Bull****...

So young, so naive.

His entire world view was shattered by ME3's endings.

It's kind of sad if you think about it.

[Phatose]

jtav wrote...

Especially when the option to arrest him is there and you can be morally certain he'll do it again.

Er...as a simple matter of fact, he actually never does if you let him live.  Even disregarding that, there's a signficant difference between "He'll try again and succeed" and "He'll try again."

[Bill Casey]

Why doesn't Shepard just tell Joker to shoot Balak's ship down after he leaves?
How does Balak escape the Normandy?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 04 juin 2013 - 12:21 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Bill Casey wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Choosing between the certainty of stopping a known terrorist (and causing the deaths of hostages) vs. the uncertainty of his future actions (with live hostages)?

You're talking about consequenses, not actions...
Failing to stop someone isn't immoral...

In Breaking Bad, Walt sat by and watched Jesse's girlfriend choke to death on her own vomit.

Just saying...

[Seboist]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

It's a video game that propped up fascist ideology, forced the player to be a sick monster, and became offensively racist in the last five minutes...

lolwut

You'll have to forgive Bill, the ending broke his mind and shattered his world view.

And he's an ITer.

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

Since when is 31 young and Kantian ethics naive?

Never and always, respectively.

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

Why doesn't Shepard just tell Joker to shoot Balak's ship down after he leaves?
How does Balak escape the Normandy?

Bill, that's just sad. You know you can't get out of RPG moral dilemmas that way.