302 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

I've taken to siding with the quarians. The species I fell in love with in ME2 ceases to exist either way. At least if they're simply destroyed, no one pretends it's good.

[MisterJB]

I wished to use Project Overlord to take conrol of the geth for the good of Humanity. Alas.

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

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

Geez, no wonder he's with Miranda and dislikes Tali. I'm surprised you don't like Garrus, he pretty much shares your views.

My Shep is the exact opposite of yours.

[Lhawke]

My first playthrough I chose the geth. Peace was not an option and I saw the geth as the wronged party. All the Quarians had to do was stand down, they refused so I stood there and watched them crash and burn.
Along with my argument with Mordin it was probably one of the best moments of the game.

[HellbirdIV]

Necanor wrote...

Quarians are thieves and liars? That's a superstition throughout the game, but it's never proven.

I believe we've already had the discussion about how Tali demands that you lie on her behalf to cover up the lies her father told.

As for thieves, it's the primary method for the Flotilla to sustain itself - they roam into systems that aren't under their jurisidiction and start mining everything in sight. Inhabited systems bribe the quarians to keep them away and prevent them pillaging their systems of resources. There's a very legit reason why they're considered space locusts.

[Sir DeLoria]

HellbirdIV wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Quarians are thieves and liars? That's a superstition throughout the game, but it's never proven.

I believe we've already had the discussion about how Tali demands that you lie on her behalf to cover up the lies her father told.

As for thieves, it's the primary method for the Flotilla to sustain itself - they roam into systems that aren't under their jurisidiction and start mining everything in sight. Inhabited systems bribe the quarians to keep them away and prevent them pillaging their systems of resources. There's a very legit reason why they're considered space locusts.

You would ruthlessly and openly shun your dead dad? Also, how can 1 person speak for a whole race. 

As for thieves, that's exactly what you do throughout ME2. Steal ressources from foreign planets. Almost every race does this.

[Sir DeLoria]

Lhawke wrote...

My first playthrough I chose the geth. Peace was not an option and I saw the geth as the wronged party. All the Quarians had to do was stand down, they refused so I stood there and watched them crash and burn.
Along with my argument with Mordin it was probably one of the best moments of the game.

So the wrong choice of 1 Admiral justifies genocide and mass murder? 

[HellbirdIV]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Wasn't really fond of the geth whitewashing in 3 myself.

As we've established, it was necessary.

Tali's account of them in ME1 - and the actions of Saren's geth - had them strictly as villains.

Legion in ME2 was written in an attempt to show the moral greyness of the situation but a lot of its lines made the geth seem more aloof and disinterested - and, given what Legion says about the geth preserving Rannoch, perhaps they seemed a bit too 'nice'.

ME3 shows that they aren't evil, but they are also willing to fight hard for their survival and for what they believe.

[Secretlyapotato]

I chose the intimidate option to have peace. Just love bluntly telling morons how it is.

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Wasn't really fond of the geth whitewashing in 3 myself.

Meh, wasn't that much of a whitewash, if you listen to what Tali tells you in ME1.

The quarians started the fight, but the geth still killed billions of men, women, and children before the dust settled.  That they let the last remnants escape doesn't make that better.

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The quarians started the fight, but the geth still killed billions of men, women, and children before the dust settled. That they let the last remnants escape doesn't make that better.

Unfortunately, this fact is barely touched upon in ME3. And if you take certain elements of Rannoch at face value you can easily get the impression the geth are blameless for the Morning War and committed no atrocities of their own. I blame the new geth writer for this .

You could.  But as you may have guessed, I tend to look beyond what's put in front of me and not accept the face value 

[Barquiel]

Previous games had the quarian view of the geth, now it's the geth's turn. I don't have any problem with that.

[Sir DeLoria]

Barquiel wrote...

Previous games had the quarian view of the geth, now it's the geth's turn. I don't have any problem with that.

Billions of dead innocents isn't a "different viewpoint". The writers just screwed up on this one.

[Ieldra]

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 don't think there is any truth to morality. We are all wired to believe in the (un)desirability of certain actions with regard to other humans and our general environment, and those beliefs, while having a biological basis, are very susceptible to cultural imprinting, but there's no "moral right" or "moral wrong" in an ontological sense. Abstract from the human viewpoint, and it all vanishes into thin air. That's why I cannot condemn the Catalyst. Its perspective is so utterly non-human that applying my morality to it is inappropriate. That I fight it is not a moral matter, but a matter of survival.

I'm making my decisions based on a value hierarchy, where I hold the survival of galactic civilization as the higher good compared to the survival of any one species. This distinction is not completely arbitrary since I am a human and unlikely to have an alien value hierarchy, but at the same time there is no way to say my value hierarchy is better than any other. Anyway, according to this value hierarchy sacrificing one species - or several - for the good of galactic civilization is a moral decision. There is no "relinquishing of morals". You go to war with the army you have, and you make the best decision available to you. Complaining that there isn't a morally perfect one is utterly pointless. The universe does not have a built-in consideration for human morality.

Regarding the topic, I try to make peace when I can, though I have sympathy for jtav's viewpoint. I liked the geth well when they were networked AIs. They were refreshingly non-humanoid. If you save them they become individuals like everyone else, and they cease to be the interesting species they've been in ME2. Destroy an interesting species concept for the sake of an (admittedly sublime) moment of dramatic resolution, that almost exemplifies everything that went wrong with ME3.

[sharkboy421]

I was diasppointed with the change in the geth from ME2 to 3.  The more we learned from Legion in 2 the more I loved the geth and wanted to know even more.

I do understand that they wanted to give the geth a little bit of a break in 3 but I feel the change was just too much.  The geth in ME2 would never have kept the Reaper upgrades; as Legion tells you they want to make their own path.  But I still find the geth fascinating and I can fortunately choose to make peace and keep both races.

Having said that. . .from a purely military stand point I would take the geth armada over just about anyone else and certainly over the Migrant Fleet.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

Previous games had the quarian view of the geth, now it's the geth's turn. I don't have any problem with that.

Billions of dead innocents isn't a "different viewpoint". The writers just screwed up on this one.

The Quarians attacked first. The Geth retaliated. They instinctually held the belief that the only way to not be killed was to kill everyone else instead.

It just shows how primitive the Geth's mental functioning was at the time. I'm not saying it's right, but I completely understand how and why the Geth tried to wipe out the Quarians initially.

I place the ultimate blame on the civilizations of the galaxy in regards to synthetics. I'm fine with never creating synthetics. Due to the multiple definitions that the Catalyst uses for the term, it's not being coherent, and therefore incorrect. We don't need to create advanced AI to progress. 

But if and when said AI is created, by accident or by design, it becomes like any other being in my opinion. It has a list of rights that fall under to protect it, provided it doesn't try to go on a genocidal crusade against organics. 

How is it not life?

[jtav]

I believe very strongly in an objective morality. Lying, murder, etc is always wrong. Better to let the entire galaxy burn than to do evil. It's just the way the game is set up, "warm fuzzies" are frequently confused with ethics.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

sharkboy421 wrote...

I was diasppointed with the change in the geth from ME2 to 3.  The more we learned from Legion in 2 the more I loved the geth and wanted to know even more.

I do understand that they wanted to give the geth a little bit of a break in 3 but I feel the change was just too much.  The geth in ME2 would never have kept the Reaper upgrades; as Legion tells you they want to make their own path.  But I still find the geth fascinating and I can fortunately choose to make peace and keep both races.

Having said that. . .from a purely military stand point I would take the geth armada over just about anyone else and certainly over the Migrant Fleet.

I agree. I really loved the interpretation of the Geth in ME2. The writing in ME3 got a little hamfisted, for reasons I suspect of trying to entice the player to make peace rather than save the Geth. I think this was done as a sort of lead in to getting the player to choose synthesis.

Of course, I don't think that's objectively the case, but as a I said, looking at ME3, it seems like there were several sublime and subtle prods and nudges by the writers to try and put the players on the path to the green ending.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

jtav wrote...

I believe very strongly in an objective morality. Lying, murder, etc is always wrong. Better to let the entire galaxy burn than to do evil. It's just the way the game is set up, "warm fuzzies" are frequently confused with ethics.

And that's fine. I of course don't believe in an objective morality, though I do see things such as murder as very rarely having justifiable cause. That said, if I have to commit murder to keep the galaxy from burning, I'll do it without hesitation.

[HellbirdIV]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Quarians attacked first. The Geth retaliated. They instinctually held the belief that the only way to not be killed was to kill everyone else instead.

It just shows how primitive the Geth's mental functioning was at the time. I'm not saying it's right, but I completely understand how and why the Geth tried to wipe out the Quarians initially.

Yeah, this is basically how I see it as well.

The geth were, for all intents and purposes, infantile. They didn't have even the most rudimentary sense of right and wrong, because the quarians - as their parents - hadn't taught them.

They had just enough consciousness to reckognize that they did in fact, themselves, exist, and that the quarians were trying to make them stop existing. Not existing is a horrifying concept.

The geth had no choice but to fight back. They have no perception or understanding of suffering, though. They can't predict the results of their actions beyond the immediate cessation of hostilites toward them.

I don't think the geth deliberately killed innocents because it doesn't make any sense for them to do so - remember, they are computer processes and thus do not have emotions that would motivate them to kill out of spite or rage - but I do think they percieved most if not all quarians as aggressors because of their limited understanding.

And whatever quarians survived that died of exposure or starvation as a result of the war destroying the infrastructure of Rannoch. As shown, the quarians had no problem bombing their own cities to get at the geth.

[sharkboy421]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I agree. I really loved the interpretation of the Geth in ME2. The writing in ME3 got a little hamfisted, for reasons I suspect of trying to entice the player to make peace rather than save the Geth. I think this was done as a sort of lead in to getting the player to choose synthesis.

Of course, I don't think that's objectively the case, but as a I said, looking at ME3, it seems like there were several sublime and subtle prods and nudges by the writers to try and put the players on the path to the green ending.

I think what really hurt the story line was the changing of writers and the loss of Chris L'Toile (apologies if I got his name wrong).

From what I understand, Chris was the one who really made the geth and Legion in particular what they were in ME2.  In fact I believe that he only gave Legion the N7 armor as an appeasement to some of his bosses so that Legion was a little more "human".  But yeah, the geth in ME2 would probably have been just fine with peace, but I don't think they had any desire to (forgive the line) "become a real boy".

And that is an interesting thought about making a subtle nod to synthesis.  I certainly agree Bioware has peace as the "optimal" outcome, but I don't think the endings were even concieved yet when Rannoch was made.  But who knows, maybe there were some sublimanl ideas that snuck.

P.S.  I just realized I am still sporting my Prime avatar.  And the GI and Trooper are my favorite mp kits.  Yeah. . .I love the geth.

[Seboist]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Wasn't really fond of the geth whitewashing in 3 myself.

Part of the reason why I wiped them out.

Modifié par Seboist, 16 juillet 2013 - 04:18 .