302 réponses à ce sujet

[Kataphrut94]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I lucked out getting peace on my first playthrough and have gone after it every time since then. Now, I'm hoping to do a run where peace is impossible and see how things go when I have to actually choose.

I'm probably going to go with geth because they are clearly the wronged party in this war. That said, I believe the game gives you crap from everyone for doing that, so we'll see if I still have the heart when the time comes.

Both sides were wronged. Legion's slideshow conspicuously leaves out the events between "the Geth start defending themselves" and "billions of Quarians are dead." There's no mention of Geth isolationism in ME3, and barely any of the Heretics.

There's a good amount of gray to the whole issue; the writers unfortunately were a bit heavy-handed trying to generate sympathy for the Geth in the final installment. I honestly think that was done to disincentivize people from picking Destroy - the choice to shoot the tube is relatively easy if the Geth already died above Rannoch.

To be fair, most of the stuff in the geth consensus is just building on what we already learned from Legion in ME2. I personally think ME2 did similar sympathy building stuff with the quarians, but that's another story. Regardless, I was mainly referring to the war in Mass Effect 3, which was instigated by the quarians.

[HellbirdIV]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I lucked out getting peace on my first playthrough and have gone after it every time since then. Now, I'm hoping to do a run where peace is impossible and see how things go when I have to actually choose.

I'm probably going to go with geth because they are clearly the wronged party in this war. That said, I believe the game gives you crap from everyone for doing that, so we'll see if I still have the heart when the time comes.

Both sides were wronged. Legion's slideshow conspicuously leaves out the events between "the Geth start defending themselves" and "billions of Quarians are dead." There's no mention of Geth isolationism in ME3, and barely any of the Heretics.

There's a good amount of gray to the whole issue; the writers unfortunately were a bit heavy-handed trying to generate sympathy for the Geth in the final installment. I honestly think that was done to disincentivize people from picking Destroy - the choice to shoot the tube is relatively easy if the Geth already died above Rannoch.

The geth did need some heavy sympathy thrown their way though, given that through ME1 they were purely depicted as the bad guys, and even in ME2 the mainstream geth were depicted more as aloof and disinterested than having an actual stake in events and interest in survival.

Even if you consider the Consensus mission to be 90% propoganda, isn't that exactly what 90% of Tali's dialogue in ME1 was as well (and about 40% of her dialogue in 2)?

[Foolsfolly]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I lucked out getting peace on my first playthrough and have gone after it every time since then. Now, I'm hoping to do a run where peace is impossible and see how things go when I have to actually choose.

I'm probably going to go with geth because they are clearly the wronged party in this war. That said, I believe the game gives you crap from everyone for doing that, so we'll see if I still have the heart when the time comes.

Both sides were wronged. Legion's slideshow conspicuously leaves out the events between "the Geth start defending themselves" and "billions of Quarians are dead." There's no mention of Geth isolationism in ME3, and barely any of the Heretics.

There's a good amount of gray to the whole issue; the writers unfortunately were a bit heavy-handed trying to generate sympathy for the Geth in the final installment. I honestly think that was done to disincentivize people from picking Destroy - the choice to shoot the tube is relatively easy if the Geth already died above Rannoch.

I really don't think there's as much gray as you seem to think.

The quarians inadvertedly created a new species and then tried their damnest to murder that species. When faced with aggression from the moment they became sapient you'd push to murder the quarians to the last man too.

Afterall they didn't even consider the geth to be alive. Why wouldn't the the geth fight them hard and slaughter the quarians?

And when they quarians ran off-world the geth stopped fighting. It was completely in self-defense.

The only thing I wish they showed more of was the fact that early geth intelligence would have been... kinda dumb. The more networked geth the greater the intelligence of the collective. So the geth in the mourning war would have been sapient but not especially smart.

The whole "kill all the quarians until we're safe" thought process would also have been a logical extension of that lower intelligence.

The quarians? Smart enough for interstellar travel and the creation of true A.I. Too dumb to reason with a species they made.

[HellbirdIV]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The only thing I wish they showed more of was the fact that early geth intelligence would have been... kinda dumb. The more networked geth the greater the intelligence of the collective. So the geth in the mourning war would have been sapient but not especially smart.

Well that one geth tries to surrender when his quarian master is threatened, and a lot of the time the geth are just standing around like derps until they actually get fired upon. It seems to show the geth as childlike and lacking true understanding of the events around them - they can only react when attacked, not understanding enough about the quarians wanting to kill them to even try negotiation.

[Sir DeLoria]

The Geth don't deserve to live for what they did in the past. If played right, the Quarian war assets are twice as high as the Geths', so even if I can make peace, I let them get killed.

[Foolsfolly]

Necanor wrote...

The Geth don't deserve to live for what they did in the past. If played right, the Quarian war assets are twice as high as the Geths', so even if I can make peace, I let them get killed.

Do you hold organic races to that standard too? Like the krogan and rachni? Or is it easier to commit genocide to a race that's fundamentally different than your own?

[AlexMBrennan]

It's exactly what you said earlier - any aggression justifies genocide ("When faced with aggression from the moment they became sapient you'd push to murder the quarians to the last man too.", "Afterall they didn't even consider the geth to be alive. Why wouldn't the the geth fight them hard and slaughter the quarians?" - the answer is obviously "because we know better and, unlike them, are not murderous maniacs")

[Slayer299]

I actually tried for peace once and on my other I sided with the Quarians and let the Geth die. I completely ignored the idiotic white-wash presented by Bioware in the Geth consensus mission, it completely ignored everything we learned from Tali *and* Legion previously and changed it into a "Quarians are evil and Geth are fluffy bunnies of peace" video slideshow.

[Ruadh]

The geth shall die, then we shall all have lamps.

[Sir DeLoria]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Necanor wrote...

The Geth don't deserve to live for what they did in the past. If played right, the Quarian war assets are twice as high as the Geths', so even if I can make peace, I let them get killed.

Do you hold organic races to that standard too? Like the krogan and rachni? Or is it easier to commit genocide to a race that's fundamentally different than your own?

It's two quite simple facts:

1. They killed millions/billions of innocents
2. I only consider organics to actually be living beings, synthetics are just emotionless objects

The Rachni and Krogan of today can't be held responsible for their ancestors' actions. The Geth that commited these infamous crimes 300 years ago are still the same ones we see on Rannoch now.

Modifié par Necanor, 16 juillet 2013 - 01:38 .

[Iakus]

My Shepard made peace.

The Morning War was three hundred freaking years ago. Time to move on. Now we have something else to worry about, like galactic survival.

Everyone deserves another chance.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I make peace. This was a war that was entirely avoidable, and all it did was waste potential resources from both sides from being used against the Reapers. I think the war was an act of aggression on the Quarians part. The Quarians didn't need to go to war with the Geth to get back to Rannoch. The Geth could probably be talked into sharing (provided I sent them Legion, which I do.)

I would have supported the Geth if I didn't make peace. I disagree with the characterization that the Geth took in ME3, and I certainly don't believe in the sudden necessity of using Reaper upgrades to achieve full sapience (a notion which completely contradicts Legion and the main Geth's philosophy from ME2).

That said, the Quarians were really making a lot of very stupid decisions at the leadership level. Han Gerrel basically extorted the entire Quarian race to have his little hawkish war with the Geth, after I told them that they could have retreated and let me handle the problem.

I'm not going to problem myself worrying about morality or ethics at this time. I'm going to categorize everything by their strategic value. I see more worth from the Geth than I do the Quarians. Emotionless, ruthless machines that can fight in any environment, require no rest or sustenance, and have highly advanced weapons, warships, and techology? Hell yeah I'm saving the Geth. The Quarians don't have the same kind of value in the raw military power as the Geth do - their strength lies more in Transportation and Logistical power. But the Geth also exceed in those fields, and each ship of theirs is fully equipped for warfare. 

I simply get more utility from the Geth.

So I'm going to choose the Geth over the Quarians every time if I can't resolve this conflict. I'm not going to be sorry or feel guilty about any actions. Nothing but bitter remorse over the Quarians actions and apathy to their fate. I don't have time or cause for anything else. Would feeling sorry for them beat the Reapers? They're getting in the way of progress against the Reapers, and I won't tolerate it. If I have to kill them all to ensure the survival of galactic civilization, I'll do it. There's really no need to justify it.

Cold, emotionless, unrelenting, ruthless, and occasionally cruel and brutal. That's what the Reapers are. Why should I be any different when fighting them?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 16 juillet 2013 - 02:11 .

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not going to problem myself worrying about morality or ethics at this time. I'm going to categorize everything by their strategic value. I see more worth from the Geth than I do the Quarians. So I'm going to choose the Geth over the Quarians every time if I can't resolve this conflict. I'm not going to be sorry or feel guilty about any actions. Nothing but bitter remorse over the Quarians actions and apathy to their fate. I don't have time or cause for anything else. Would feeling sorry for them beat the Reapers? They're getting in the way of progress against the Reapers, and I won't tolerate it. If I have to kill them all to ensure the survival of galactic civilization, I'll do it.

Cold, emotionless, unrelenting, ruthless, and occasionally cruel and brutal. That's what the Reapers are. Why should I be any different when fighting them?

Can it be, that you take this game too seriously? You know from the beginning, that the Reapers can be beaten even if you only pick up 1/3 of the possible forces. The reapers can't be beaten conventionally and the Turian, Human, Council and Quarian military forces can already be enough to escort the Crucible to it's destination with minimal damage.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I'm not going to problem myself worrying about morality or ethics at this time. I'm going to categorize everything by their strategic value. I see more worth from the Geth than I do the Quarians. So I'm going to choose the Geth over the Quarians every time if I can't resolve this conflict. I'm not going to be sorry or feel guilty about any actions. Nothing but bitter remorse over the Quarians actions and apathy to their fate. I don't have time or cause for anything else. Would feeling sorry for them beat the Reapers? They're getting in the way of progress against the Reapers, and I won't tolerate it. If I have to kill them all to ensure the survival of galactic civilization, I'll do it.

Cold, emotionless, unrelenting, ruthless, and occasionally cruel and brutal. That's what the Reapers are. Why should I be any different when fighting them?

Can it be, that you take this game too seriously? You know from the beginning, that the Reapers can be beaten even if you only pick up 1/3 of the possible forces. The reapers can't be beaten conventionally and the Turian, Human, Council and Quarian military forces can already be enough to escort the Crucible to it's destination with minimal damage.

Yeah, maybe I do take the hypotheticals too seriously. What's it to you? 

Going by your logic here, I don't even need to gather a fleet or an army - I already have over 9400 in total war assets (4700 EMS at 50%) from the N7 Special Ops alone at the beginning of the game. The rest of the galaxy can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned now. Woohoo for human dominance! I have more than enough resources to get the High EMS Destroy ending. 

Or is that too harsh for you?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 16 juillet 2013 - 02:16 .

[o Ventus]

I go for peace, because there's no point in throwing one away when I could have both.

If the choice were binary, I would take the geth.

[HellbirdIV]

wiggles89 wrote...

Sided with the quarians. Trusting the geth is a massive gamble, and a war for survival isn't the time to be taking such a gamble.

The problem is that neither side is really trustworthy. The quarians put their lust for revenge ahead of their own survival (sacrificing civilian ships to destroy more geth ships) and the geth took the offer from the Reapers to save themselves.

Screw it. I say we kill both of them and just uplift the Yahg instead.

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Yeah, maybe I do take the hypotheticals too seriously. What's it to you? 

Going by your logic here, I don't even need to gather a fleet or an army - I already have over 9400 in total war assets (4700 EMS at 50%) from the N7 Special Ops alone at the beginning of the game. The rest of the galaxy can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned now. Woohoo for human dominance! I have more than enough resources to get the High EMS Destroy ending. 

Or is that too harsh for you?

Umm no, that's not too different from what I do(except for that last part). I play through the game, the way I feel is morally best and don't give a damn about the war assets, they've always sufficed. Save the Quarians, Turians and Krogan, help the Elcor and Hanar/Drell. The rest will survive until I have beaten the Reapers.

[Sir DeLoria]

HellbirdIV wrote...

wiggles89 wrote...

Sided with the quarians. Trusting the geth is a massive gamble, and a war for survival isn't the time to be taking such a gamble.

The problem is that neither side is really trustworthy. The quarians put their lust for revenge ahead of their own survival (sacrificing civilian ships to destroy more geth ships) and the geth took the offer from the Reapers to save themselves.

Screw it. I say we kill both of them and just uplift the Yahg instead.

If you don't trust the Quarians, just throw Gerrel and Xen out of the airlock.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Yeah, maybe I do take the hypotheticals too seriously. What's it to you? 

Going by your logic here, I don't even need to gather a fleet or an army - I already have over 9400 in total war assets (4700 EMS at 50%) from the N7 Special Ops alone at the beginning of the game. The rest of the galaxy can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned now. Woohoo for human dominance! I have more than enough resources to get the High EMS Destroy ending. 

Or is that too harsh for you?

Umm no, that's not too different from what I do(except for that last part). I play through the game, the way I feel is morally best and don't give a damn about the war assets, they've always sufficed. Save the Quarians, Turians and Krogan, help the Elcor and Hanar/Drell. The rest will survive until I have beaten the Reapers.

And I approach the game from a much more... rationalist and pragmatic mindset. I get immersed more in it.

I believe morality is not universal. There is no inherently good or bad act. It's all based on perspective and political socialization on how we perceive certain actions. 

I'm not saying that I'm completely amoral. But I'm saying that we obviously hold morality in a different esteem.

I view all war as inherently amoral, with the only purpose that is universal being to accomplish one's goals. In this case, I view the goal as the defeat of the Reapers, to ensure the survival of galactic civilization. To that end, I am willing to perform actions that might be seen as evil and immoral, up to and including the sacrifice of entire species if it means that there is a tomorrow for the galaxy. If even just one race can survive the fight and beat the Reapers, I'll still what I can to ensure that race gets its chance. That does not mean I support all wars or endorse the legality of those that aren't legal. I am against pointless wars that serve no purpose or action.

[Ledgend1221]

I'd take the Geth any day.

[HellbirdIV]

Necanor wrote...

If you don't trust the Quarians, just throw Gerrel and Xen out of the airlock.

Hell I trust those two. They at least say they'll do exactly what they'll do. It's the liars, thieves and hypocrits that really bother me. Kal'Reegar is good, he's honest too.

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And I approach the game from a much more... rationalist and pragmatic mindset. I get immersed more in it.
I believe morality is not universal. There is no inherently good or bad act. It's all based on perspective and political socialization on how we perceive certain actions. 
I'm not saying that I'm completely amoral. But I'm saying that we obviously hold morality in a different esteem.

I view all war as inherently amoral, with the only purpose that is universal being to accomplish one's goals. In this case, I view the goal as the defeat of the Reapers, to ensure the survival of galactic civilization. To that end, I am willing to perform actions that might be seen as evil and immoral, up to and including the sacrifice of entire species if it means that there is a tomorrow for the galaxy. If even just one race can survive the fight and beat the Reapers, I'll still what I can to ensure that race gets its chance. That does not mean I support all wars or endorse the legality of those that aren't legal. I am against pointless wars that serve no purpose or action.

I also get immersed into the game, but more into Shep's own personality, the relationships with his squadmates and his moral views. The entire war with the reapers is more of an outlining.

I believe in many of the theories of Immanuel Kant and Sokrates, regarding truth to morals as extremely important. Morals are the base of a functioning society after all. Of course morals must sometimes be relinquished, but only when absolutely necessary.  My view on synthetics isn't changed by that belief.

[Sir DeLoria]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Necanor wrote...

If you don't trust the Quarians, just throw Gerrel and Xen out of the airlock.

Hell I trust those two. They at least say they'll do exactly what they'll do. It's the liars, thieves and hypocrits that really bother me. Kal'Reegar is good, he's honest too.

Quarians are thieves and liars? That's a superstition throughout the game, but it's never proven. Shala is a bit of a politician, that's true.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And I approach the game from a much more... rationalist and pragmatic mindset. I get immersed more in it.
I believe morality is not universal. There is no inherently good or bad act. It's all based on perspective and political socialization on how we perceive certain actions. 
I'm not saying that I'm completely amoral. But I'm saying that we obviously hold morality in a different esteem.

I view all war as inherently amoral, with the only purpose that is universal being to accomplish one's goals. In this case, I view the goal as the defeat of the Reapers, to ensure the survival of galactic civilization. To that end, I am willing to perform actions that might be seen as evil and immoral, up to and including the sacrifice of entire species if it means that there is a tomorrow for the galaxy. If even just one race can survive the fight and beat the Reapers, I'll still what I can to ensure that race gets its chance. That does not mean I support all wars or endorse the legality of those that aren't legal. I am against pointless wars that serve no purpose or action.

I also get immersed into the game, but more into Shep's own personality, the relationships with his squadmates and his moral views. The entire war with the reapers is more of an outlining.

I believe in many of the theories of Immanuel Kant and Sokrates, regarding truth to morals as extremely important. Morals are the base of a functioning society after all. Of course morals must sometimes be relinquished, but only when absolutely necessary.  My view on synthetics isn't changed by that belief.

I think this is such a time when morals ought to be disposed of. 

Not that my Shepard was really ever terribly huge on them. He's a fairly apathetic and highly fuunctioning sociopath.

And who said anything about synthetics?