1765 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Earth got hit the hardest, and plenty of people are still alive on it by the time the war is over. Would it have been better to kill all of them just in case they became indoctrinated, knowing that you win anyway without doing this?

 

This is the problem with arguments from necessity. They are only justified when it's too late.

 

If I knew I was going to win? No, I wouldn't. If I didn't, yes, I would.

 

Indeed, that is a flaw with them. Either you do what you had to do and everyone claims you didn't have to do it. Or you do what you had to do when it's too late and everyone who's left hates you for not doing it sooner. If you don't do enough, you're dead.

[themikefest]

Well you can always wade through this I guess.

 

http://www.cgsc.edu/...cgrath_op23.pdf

Did you?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Only when the world is falling, beyond salvation, beyond rescue. Not "strip-them-of-technicians-and-glass-them-months-in-advance." The whole goal is to build the Crucible, and see that there is a surviving population afterwards.

Miracle of Palaven is acceptable. A Scorched Earth "pruning" of the human race is not.

 

I disagree. The world is falling. It is beyond rescue and salvation. My goal doesn't include seeing a surviving population. It just involves building the Crucible and deploying it against the Reapers. My fleets are my surviving population. 

 

Miracle of Palaven was too little, too late in my opinion.

[von uber]

Did you?

 

Nope, but I seem to recall it was about 3 or 4 to 1 ratio for the US in WW2. But then that was noted for having a massive logistical arm.

[Althix]

Thessia and Thessia aftermath

[DeinonSlayer]

I disagree. The world is falling. It is beyond rescue and salvation. My goal doesn't include seeing a surviving population. It just involves building the Crucible and deploying it against the Reapers. My fleets are my surviving population.

Miracle of Palaven was too little, too late in my opinion.

I said it's acceptable if a world is already fallen, being reaped, unsalvageable. What I'm asking is would you employ this "scorched earth" policy against worlds that have not yet been hit, that we don't know will be hit before the Crucible is built and deployed. Worlds that can be saved.

Or others, like Terra Nova. Check the description. Contested, but not fallen. Nuke them?

I see no benefit and a hell of a lot of drawbacks to putting ourselves in the Batarians' position deliberately.

[KaiserShep]

I guess I don't really have as much of a people with the Thessia portion of the game as others do. My biggest gripe is with the design of the final fight that ends in failure, only because it's too easy to kill Leng, only to have the cut scene pull you out of what would otherwise been a victory.

Even in ME1, when this same thing happens with Saren on Virmire, the mission itself is still successful, even if at the cost of a squad member.

[DeathScepter]

i can see where MassiveEffective is coming from.  Lets Face it, War is hell and messy. Also I do know where many pro cerberus BSN members do come from too.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Earth got hit the hardest, and plenty of people are still alive on it by the time the war is over. Would it have been better to kill all of them just in case they became indoctrinated, knowing that you win anyway without doing this?

 

This is the problem with arguments from necessity. They are only justified when it's too late.

 

I think the Batarians would beg to differ on that point.

[themikefest]

The scene with Anderson after the destroyer in London is destroyed. Why can't we get in the vehicle and discuss what lies ahead instead of standing around with their thumbs up their fifth point of contact wasting time? Its funny watching Anderson walk out of his vehicle like hes back on the block. The guy has no sense of urgency.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I said it's acceptable if a world is already fallen, being reaped, unsalvageable. What I'm asking is would you employ this "scorched earth" policy against worlds that have not yet been hit, that we don't know will be hit before the Crucible is built and deployed. Worlds that can be saved.

Or others, like Terra Nova. Check the description. Contested, but not fallen. Nuke them?

I see no benefit and a hell of a lot of drawbacks to putting ourselves in the Batarians' position deliberately.

 

Not against worlds directly in the line of fire, no. Worlds we know the Reapers are rushing towards? Yes. I'd wait until they were actually planet side first. That way, I can take out a few of them possibly.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I guess I don't really have as much of a people with the Thessia portion of the game as others do. My biggest gripe is with the design of the final fight that ends in failure, only because it's too easy to kill Leng, only to have the cut scene pull you out of what would otherwise been a victory.

Even in ME1, when this same thing happens with Saren on Virmire, the mission itself is still successful, even if at the cost of a squad member.

 

It is very difficult to script a loss without having it be a "critical mission failure" because someone is always going to be good enough to beat the thing on the highest difficulty. It is my opinion that it would be better to avoid the whole thing altogether and do the defeat in a cut scene. Perhaps Shepard should have been wounded by Kai Leng and had to be taken back to the Normandy. 

[CronoDragoon]

I think the Batarians would beg to differ on that point.

 

Who?

[DeinonSlayer]

Not against worlds directly in the line of fire, no. Worlds we know the Reapers are rushing towards? Yes. I'd wait until they were actually planet side first. That way, I can take out a few of them possibly.

OK, that I can understand. Ugly as all hell, but understandable. I'd reserve that for lost causes; worlds like Terra Nova may yet hold on. All we're really able to do is slow them down until the device is built.

I can see Javik's logic, though. Destroy a colony's entire population, and the Reapers move on to the next world. Leave it to be harvested, and it buys the next world some time. They're already an utterly overwhelming force; destroying ourselves faster than they would destroy us makes their job easier.

Hell, there really is no good answer, is there?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

OK, that I can understand. Ugly as all hell, but understandable. I'd reserve that for lost causes; worlds like Terra Nova may yet hold on. All we're really able to do is slow them down until the device is built.

I can see Javik's logic. Destroy a colony's entire population, and the Reapers move on to the next world. Leave it to be harvested, and it buys the next world some time. They're already an utterly overwhelming force; destroying ourselves faster than they would destroy us makes their job easier.

 

But they're not "harvesting" them. They're culling them. They're only making one capital reaper per cycle. And apparently they move the Citadel around to do harvesting. And they only take so many, then just wipe out the rest. They've got to have the choice DNA. That's why they chose to harvest London and not Atlanta or New York or Tokyo or Shanghai. Hell, they didn't even want Toronto. London because Anderson was born there, twice.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Who?

 

Blashphem. You humans are all facists.

[von uber]

But they're not "harvesting" them. They're culling them. They're only making one capital reaper per cycle. And apparently they move the Citadel around to do harvesting. And they only take so many, then just wipe out the rest. They've got to have the choice DNA. That's why they chose to harvest London and not Atlanta or New York or Tokyo or Shanghai. Hell, they didn't even want Toronto. London because Anderson was born there, twice.

 

Nah, it's because London is an expensive hell hole where the rich are buying out all the property and stripping the core out of the city is great.

[CronoDragoon]

Blashphem. You humans are all facists.

 

 

I'm doing my part!

[CrutchCricket]

And that isn't what I meant by it. I meant that you either contribute to our side of the war effort, or you support the Reapers via inaction (or worse). I'm not entirely certain who would have a sympathetic view of the Reapers motivation: They really don't leave a lot of room for grey. They're clear in their intentions and plans, and they gave me the issue of them killing us all.

 
Inability =/= inaction. Not everyone can fight, or build, or research or whatever. And even if they could we can't supply them all with the tools to do it.
 

I think survival matters. I think the best way to ensure that survival is by creating the Crucible and destroying the Reapers with it. As I said to iakus, cowardice and running can only get me so far. Eventually, the Reapers will catch up to me somewhere down the road. I can't hide like Leviathan. I doubt the Reapers are going to make the same mistake that they made with the Protheans on Ilos. And yes, I do disagree with Miranda in that regard. Hell, part of me even thinks she'd end up rejecting my Shepard for being even more extreme than TIM in some aspects.

Ilos wasn't their mistake, they never knew about it. The Reapers aren't infallible. And a handful of people could disappear in a galaxy as easily as a molecule in your hand.
 

And there's an in-between in there too. I'll take the option of what is most practical at the time. I probably came off wrong. I'm not going to callously start shipping every citizen who didn't enlist off to a death camp the exact moment a husk appears. But I'm willing to judge from circumstances in each situation that requires it whether or not to just blow them all away or make an effort to rescue them and utilize them. It's a scorched earth policy to a certain extent, and I have an economic model I made a while back that I came up with on this issue. It's nothing fancy, no bells and whistles. However, to summarize, I may be extreme, but there is one thing I adhere to as the word of god: results. If a method isn't getting me results, then I'll do something else. I'm not willing to be wrong: I'll keep working until I'm right. And this is where we disagree. Yeah, I'd be a lot better in terms of operations. But (prior to indoctrination), I'm not seeing the waste with Cerberus actions. As for the malevolence, if it gets me what I need, it doesn't matter. If the malevolence has no effect at all on the outcome, and is completely separated from it, then I have no problem either. It's only when the malevolence inhibits utility and results that I'd consider changing my approach in that regard (and I mean I would change it).

 

I think you're backtracking. Before, you said civilians have no value and are not worth saving and you'd sooner just kill them all, because you can't be bothered to defend them and they'll be taken sooner or later. That has nothing to do with results and nothing to do with the best or the necessary choice to get them.

 

When asked for the reason, you keep asking why not. Why not kill them, what value do they have, what use are they to me? But that's no justification. That's not a reason. That's not ruthlessness, or considering all options. I don't know if there's a word for what that is. But I know what it's not.

 

The ruthless man does what must be done. But he starts at the start. He starts with conventional options, options that don't involve needless allied or civilian casualties and if those don't work he moves up. You start from diplomacy, go up to property damage, go up to flesh wound, go up to murder, go up to mass murder, go up to genocide, go up to total extinction. That's considering all options. And every time you move up you ask why? And if the answer is "because there's no other way", you do it. You starting at total extinction going "why not?" is nothing of the kind.

 

That's what Cerberus fails to understand in everything but Lazarus, that's (partly) why everything they do is wasteful and that's why (if you're being serious) you fit in the same category. It's also where we differ. I start at the start and ask "why" before I move up.

 

As for Sanctuary, we both know more was accomplished there than just 'backflips'. That is an appeal to ridicule fallacy on your part to say otherwise, and to make your claim against mine in that regard as well. I think the intention of BW was to create a scenario that did legitimately create a gain against the Reapers, but was still horrifying and unethical from a moral perspective. That said, I'll make a stance here: those civilians existed outside my goals and plans. There was no utility I could achieve from them, therefore I didn't care about them. What happened to them is of utterly no concern or care of mine. Should it be?
 
Also, from a meta-perspective, Leviathan was added later. Can't really do much against something that goes in and retroactively adds something that makes Sanctuary redundant. In that respect, I'd change it more to a place where conventional Reaper tech can be studied to make advances similar to the Thanix guns. The refugees can do what they will, as long as they don't hinder my plans or help the Reapers (in which case, they will be obliterated). They'll receive no assistance from me.
 
And a little bit of a question: What's wrong with being cartoonishly evil? What's ontologically wrong with it?

 

It's an appeal to ridicule because the notion is ridiculous and if Bioware intended it to be perceived as a legitimate gain against the Reapers, it's just one more failure. Sanctuary had nothing. The ability to make and control a few husks is insignificant next to the power of the Reapers. Were we supposed to seriously believe a wuss like Lawson, even if backed by TIM's resources, could "hack" the Reapers? Insert Bender letmelaughevenharder.gif.

 

I agree the point was to present something that was overwhelmingly morally repugnant. I can also agree that some small gain akin to the Leviathan enthrallment teams could be derived from it. But that is it. And speaking of Leviathan, the meta perspective doesn't matter. I'm not sure its applicable anyway since Leviathan was planned DLC but the discussion is best served from an in-universe perspective (otherwise who cares if main game ones and zeroes are supplanted by DLC ones and zeroes?). And in universe, the Leviathan enthrallment teams provide all the benefits of Sanctuary with 100% less casualties.

 

As for the civilians, can you really see no use for them? Not wanting to fight is not the same thing as being unable to fight if you have no choice left. If it's a choice between Horizon the plush refugee resort (or so we thought) and the front lines, I'm personally picking Horizon. But if Horizon is no more and the only choice is the front line, well hell. Might as well take down a few bastards before I die.

 

What's wrong with being evil? No one will trust you. And no one will follow you. There is room for evil people, there is purpose. There are things we need them to do. All part of considering every alternative. But you use evil people and then you discard them. You don't put them in charge. And even when you use them you keep them on as tight a leash as you can manage.

[Mordokai]

On a tangent, I think Massively would do just grand in the Imperium of Man.

 

This would be pretty much daily occurrence:

[CrutchCricket]

So I have Mordin disable the AI core while Jack apprehends Miranda and Garrus and Grunt round up the rest. 

Assuming this is the original four we are dealing with. The more crew I get, the easier it is. 

 

"Access to the AI Core is restricted at this time."

 

Either become a god and lose my love (in Miranda and Rose's case), or stay fettered to humanity and the rules (at least the 'moral' ones) for the sake of it. That is a very tough decision for me to choose from. The only thing I'd want more than my love is godhood, and vice versa.

 

Wait, when'd we get around to my neck of the woods?

 

Of course I've already chosen godhood... or at least as close to it as control of giant mechanical cuttlefish can get you...

 

OK, that I can understand. Ugly as all hell, but understandable. I'd reserve that for lost causes; worlds like Terra Nova may yet hold on. All we're really able to do is slow them down until the device is built.

I can see Javik's logic, though. Destroy a colony's entire population, and the Reapers move on to the next world. Leave it to be harvested, and it buys the next world some time. They're already an utterly overwhelming force; destroying ourselves faster than they would destroy us makes their job easier.

Hell, there really is no good answer, is there?

 

Ah, the one non moral-based reason you might not want to glass a planet, either before or after it's lost. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

OK, that I can understand. Ugly as all hell, but understandable. I'd reserve that for lost causes; worlds like Terra Nova may yet hold on. All we're really able to do is slow them down until the device is built.

I can see Javik's logic, though. Destroy a colony's entire population, and the Reapers move on to the next world. Leave it to be harvested, and it buys the next world some time. They're already an utterly overwhelming force; destroying ourselves faster than they would destroy us makes their job easier.

Hell, there really is no good answer, is there?

 

Nope. 

[Animositisomina]

It was sort of a running BioWare problem, at least with the former engine.

 

[pics of ugly hands removed]

 

I thought Isabella wore gloves until I looked real hard.

If you're on PC, this mod will fix the hands of several main characters -- Merrill, Isabela, Anders, and Bethany.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 
Inability =/= inaction. Not everyone can fight, or build, or research or whatever. And even if they could we can't supply them all with the tools to do it.
 

Ilos wasn't their mistake, they never knew about it. The Reapers aren't infallible. And a handful of people could disappear in a galaxy as easily as a molecule in your hand.
 

 

I think you're backtracking. Before, you said civilians have no value and are not worth saving and you'd sooner just kill them all, because you can't be bothered to defend them and they'll be taken sooner or later. That has nothing to do with results and nothing to do with the best or the necessary choice to get them.

 

When asked for the reason, you keep asking why not. Why not kill them, what value do they have, what use are they to me? But that's no justification. That's not a reason. That's not ruthlessness, or considering all options. I don't know if there's a word for what that is. But I know what it's not.

 

The ruthless man does what must be done. But he starts at the start. He starts with conventional options, options that don't involve needless allied or civilian casualties and if those don't work he moves up. You start from diplomacy, go up to property damage, go up to flesh wound, go up to murder, go up to mass murder, go up to genocide, go up to total extinction. That's considering all options. And every time you move up you ask why? And if the answer is "because there's no other way", you do it. You starting at total extinction going "why not?" is nothing of the kind.

 

That's what Cerberus fails to understand in everything but Lazarus, that's (partly) why everything they do is wasteful and that's why (if you're being serious) you fit in the same category. It's also where we differ. I start at the start and ask "why" before I move up.

 

 

It's an appeal to ridicule because the notion is ridiculous and if Bioware intended it to be perceived as a legitimate gain against the Reapers, it's just one more failure. Sanctuary had nothing. The ability to make and control a few husks is insignificant next to the power of the Reapers. Were we supposed to seriously believe a wuss like Lawson, even if backed by TIM's resources, could "hack" the Reapers? Insert Bender letmelaughevenharder.gif.

 

I agree the point was to present something that was overwhelmingly morally repugnant. I can also agree that some small gain akin to the Leviathan enthrallment teams could be derived from it. But that is it. And speaking of Leviathan, the meta perspective doesn't matter. I'm not sure its applicable anyway since Leviathan was planned DLC but the discussion is best served from an in-universe perspective (otherwise who cares if main game ones and zeroes are supplanted by DLC ones and zeroes?). And in universe, the Leviathan enthrallment teams provide all the benefits of Sanctuary with 100% less casualties.

 

As for the civilians, can you really see no use for them? Not wanting to fight is not the same thing as being unable to fight if you have no choice left. If it's a choice between Horizon the plush refugee resort (or so we thought) and the front lines, I'm personally picking Horizon. But if Horizon is no more and the only choice is the front line, well hell. Might as well take down a few bastards before I die.

 

What's wrong with being evil? No one will trust you. And no one will follow you. There is room for evil people, there is purpose. There are things we need them to do. All part of considering every alternative. But you use evil people and then you discard them. You don't put them in charge. And even when you use them you keep them on as tight a leash as you can manage.

 

There's no distinction in my eyes between inaction and inability in my opinion. That's how I view things. If they can't or won't contribute, then I don't care about them beyond ensuring that they aren't used against me. What do you suggest I do with them instead? No matter what they do, everything of value they possess is a resource that isn't going towards the fight. Anything they have of worth is something that isn't going towards the battle. Every pre-fab building they have is part of a ship, or armor, or a gun that isn't being used against the Reapers. What I'm suggesting is that we move as close to total war as is physically possible for organics. Any resource not going towards the war effort is a wasted resource.

 

Ilos wasn't the Reapers mistake, no. But they do know that they missed a spot last time now, and it has caused them a lot of inconvenience and trouble. I can be sure that they aren't going to allow the same thing to happen again in this cycle or all coming cycles. Running is possible; Leviathan was able to do it, but then again, what would be the point? Would I have a sizable population with me to reconstruct our civilization? Not everyone who runs is found by the Reapers. However, the number that we know that escapes is very limited. It's like Alcatraz: only a handful of people ever escaped from it (and even then, there's no proof they actually survived their escape to freedom since they were never found). I'm not very content with those odds of running.

 

Then I'll simply say: Why not? Because it's evil? Unless there's another way that benefits me (I'll leave that to you to tell me), then what else am I to do? I'm not going to try the other ways because, I'll ask, what's the point? Why am I trying all these solutions if there's no benefit? Why don't I just kill them all and take that particular variable out of the problem? Being ruthless is about more than just being willing to try every option. Sometimes, it really is about going for the extremes first. I'm not calculating any other way that gives me benefit beyond emotional comfort. What way would there be in not starting with the most extreme method here? There are other ways, yes. And they don't get me what I want, so there's no point in wasting effort trying. Diplomacy won't work. Neither will sabotage. Hell, direct military action on a strategic level is barely holding the Reapers off. I'll start from the top if it gets me to the bottom faster. Again, I don't view Cerberus' actions as wasteful. I admit we aren't going to ever agree on this: I hold your ideal to be wasteful. I really do. You're wasting time and energy slowly ramping up the intensity of your actions. In my opinion, that's too slow. I need a solution now, and I need one that will solve the problem for me. Killing the civilians does that for me. Is it an ideal solution? No. I don't believe one exists. But it's the path of least resistance for now, and that's what I care about. I won't pretend it's efficient, but I can't tell you what is and what isn't in this case. So yes, I'll start with the why not if it serves my purpose. As we've all stated, this is something you and I aren't likely to agree with. I still don't see truly see your logic in this case, and I likely won't. You won't see mine either, and you likely won't. Another thing is that we both have different aims as well.

 

Executionally, yes, it was a tremendous fail. Far be it from me to describe it otherwise, but yes, the game and BW wanted to depict it as I described. And I agree with their intent, if not their execution. Sanctuary had a solution. The game acknowledges it. Hackett himself even says that it's useful information. You can even express to Joker the very opinion I feel about it. Yes, I believe we were supposed to believe exactly that. And it failed executionally, but I'm going to agree with the intent there. On Leviathan and the enthrallment team: yeah, it does accomplish that with 100% less casualties.

 

And to me, I'm struggling to see how that's a good thing. Now what am I to do with all these civilians and refugees? I can make a few of them fight, and a few of them contribute in other ways. But what about the rest, the ones who can't or won't? I'm going to kill them. I'm not going to give them a chance. Any resource they might have or need is one less I have for my effort. That's unacceptable to me. Whatever they scrounge for or find of value is a wasted resource that isn't contributing. Hell, the only thing they'd have of worth is air and the clothes on their back (hell I might not even let them have that). Any food or water they find is food or water not going into the bellies of people contributing. For whatever reason, they can't be an asset, so I'm not going to let them be a burden. There aren't going to be refugees in my war, because I won't allow them to exist. 

 

I disagree with that. I believe the 'evil' people should be the ones running things. I think this is a fundamental difference between our mentalities, and not one that we can reconcile. I do believe in power for those who take it. Once they taken it, it's theirs to do as they wish. They have proven themselves to be better, hence why they have the power. To quote Warhammer 40K, "Only the insane have strength enough to prosper, only those that prosper truly judge who is sane." It's a lot like social darwinism to the extreme. Sufficiently powerful people don't care about the trust or approval of their followers. In the case of Mass Effect, Shepard is the 'evil guy' who is unleashed so to speak. He's in charge, and he's going to make things happen. And everyone's going to follow him whether they approve or not. If they don't, they die. The alternative is the Reapers. That's the choice that I, the evil man in power, am giving them. It's my way or the highway. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 

Ah, the one non moral-based reason you might not want to glass a planet, either before or after it's lost. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

 

Even then, it's a difficult decision: Do I let the planet be harvested in the ideal that I can take the time and resources I have, and use them while knowing that the Reapers numbers are growing with husks, indoctrinated, and harvested (while still possibly being hunted by other Reapers simultaneously), or do I burn them and deny the Reapers that resource, while now facing the full strength of their existing forces?

 

It's a tough call from an economic and strategic standpoint, and, thinking about it now, Deinon was right: there is no right answer to this. You're kinda boned no matter how you look at it. I'd wait until the Reapers land to detonate the nukes or fire the guns or whatever. That way, I can take out a few of them at least.