146 réponses à ce sujet

[CrutchCricket]

With your morality as you've described it, I still expect that you'd have the Alliance deflect the asteroid, if only because it'd be more economical to trade with them for the metals, harvested by them via their existing infrastructure, rather than stepping back, watching them die, then swooping in afterwards to claim it all for ourselves. If I'm mistaken, either in my judgment of your motives or course of action in the provided scenario, I apologize - I'd rather not be David, insisting you'd do what I'm guessing you'd do. That's just my best guess based on what I've gathered thus far.

 

You could take it further and save them in order to manipulate their gratitude in your favor. Worked well enough for the hanar (not that I'm saying that's why they saved the drell).

 

An even more extreme example is the Noghri in the Thrawn Trilogy (Star Wars). Though that eventually backfires, it still bought the Empire something like 40 years of servitude and some of the best assassins and commandos in the galaxy.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Creative, but pointless, IMO. ME2 and beyond seem to work with the assumption that humanity's place in the galaxy is secure, what with their council seat (and, eventually, political/diplomatic allies). Just seems like your Shepard is concerning himself with yesterday's news, if you ask me.

 

But whatever. It's your game.

[CrutchCricket]

 Creative, but pointless, IMO. ME2 and beyond seem to work with the assumption that humanity's place in the galaxy is secure, what with their council seat (and, eventually, political/diplomatic allies). Just seems like your Shepard is concerning himself with yesterday's news, if you ask me.

 

But whatever. It's your game.

 

Except the part where they veto or otherwise block the human councilor at every turn.

 

I would agree it's not Shepard's mission to fix the politics but humanity is not as strong as it looks on paper.

[DeinonSlayer]

You could take it further and save them in order to manipulate their gratitude in your favor. Worked well enough for the hanar (not that I'm saying that's why the saved the drell).
 
An even more extreme example is the Noghri in the Thrawn Trilogy (Star Wars). Though that eventually backfires, it still bought the Empire something like 40 years of servitude and some of the best assassins and commandos in the galaxy.

There's also that.

[Obadiah]

...

Or have I pissed off your sense of self-righteousness?

 

It's a little amusing that you think empathy could be some sort of moral high ground.
 

Your explanation sounds anti-alien to me, but I invite you to continue protesting otherwise while explaining how much you don't care what happens to aliens.

[von uber]

Why would you want humanity to be all supreme? Look at the state of us!

Supremacy for the sake of power is never good. Why does humanity need to be 'top dog'? That would just lead to endless conflict (one humanity would lose against the other races anyway).
The message of the games is that it is better to work together as a team regardless of species, if you want something different then mass effect will disappoint I suspect.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's a little amusing that you think empathy could be some sort of moral high ground.
 

Your explanation sounds anti-alien to me, but I invite you to continue protesting otherwise while explaining how much you don't care what happens to aliens.

 

It's not. But the way you're trying to wield i

 

I think the "and we can't help them" stipulation in your post is crucial, Massively. It's the difference between simply acknowledging a situation for what it is and "manufacturing" these "opportunities," even through inaction. Case in point: the Alliance discovers a civilization numbering in the hundreds of millions. Their planet is blessed with an abundance of precious metals/whatever/something worth wanting, but their space program is no more advanced than ours in the modern day. They have no colonies, and have only sent a few dozen of their people to the Citadel as part of First Contact proceedings. However, a dinosaur-killer asteroid is found to be on a collision course with this world, albeit almost a year from now - a natural, random event, not Balak 2.0. The people under the hammer lack the means to deflect the asteroid and save their species, but the Alliance could do so on a whim.

With your morality as you've described it, I still expect that you'd have the Alliance deflect the asteroid, if only because it'd be more economical to trade with them for the metals, harvested by them via their existing infrastructure, rather than stepping back, watching them die, then swooping in afterwards to claim it all for ourselves. If I'm mistaken, either in my judgment of your motives or course of action in the provided scenario, I apologize - I'd rather not be David, insisting you'd do what I'm guessing you'd do. That's just my best guess based on what I've gathered thus far.

 

I'd probably do that. It's not out of some sense of preserving the value of life or whatever, it's that I can get what I want with minimal effort. By deflecting the asteroid, I'm using less resources than I would in the long run, plus it makes me look good to the people I save and the galactic community. I can easily manipulate that goodwill to use as a gain for myself and humanity. Now if the asteroid was already too close to deflect, screw it, I got my claim ready and waiting.

[Bad King]

Seriously guys, please step off your high-horses: this is a roleplaying thread which advises on creating a playthrough where the other races are weakened as much as possible while humanity is empowered, leading to galactic dominance.

 

It is pro-human in the Maya Brooks sense rather than the TIM sense. Obviously I don't normally do playthroughs like this (I for one am a big salarian fan!), but I thought it would be fun to design one so that humanity has the most relative power at the end of the trilogy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Why would you want humanity to be all supreme? Look at the state of us!

Supremacy for the sake of power is never good. Why does humanity need to be 'top dog'? That would just lead to endless conflict (one humanity would lose against the other races anyway).
The message of the games is that it is better to work together as a team regardless of species, if you want something different then mass effect will disappoint I suspect.

 

I thought the message of the games was that creating synthetics will inevitably lead to our destruction? I thought the the message was that the tech singularity was to be accepted?

 

[DeinonSlayer]

I thought the message of the games was that creating synthetics will inevitably lead to our destruction? I thought the the message was that the tech singularity was to be accepted?

Not that they made a compelling case or anything, they just provided no dialogue options to challenge the assertion.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Not that they made a compelling case or anything, they just provided no dialogue options to challenge the assertion.

 

Yep. One more instance of butchered roleplay in the game. 

[von uber]

I thought the message of the games was that creating synthetics will inevitably lead to our destruction? I thought the the message was that the tech singularity was to be accepted?

Ok, the theme right up until the last 10 minutes

[Farangbaa]

Not that they made a compelling case or anything, they just provided no dialogue options to challenge the assertion.

You cannot challenge that assertion. You, with your 150 year lifespan, at best, have nothing to challenge an aeons old entity with. They could've included an option, probably, but it would lead nowhere.

 

And please don't bring up the Quarian/Geth peace. 2 weeks peace <<< 1,000,000,000 years (minimum). The pattern was observed even before the Catalyst was created. There really isn't much to challenge.

[Bob from Accounting]

A pro-human 'philosophy' is really not something that should be catered to.

 

Thankfully, it isn't.

 

It's ultimately a silly choice that survives on the generousity of purposefully contrived writing. As it should be. It's a good thing and good writing. As natural as it might be for such choices to doom to player for being pointlessly hostile based on a philosophy that only really exists because the game says so, it wouldn't be very fun. And making a fun, functioning game has to come first.

[DeinonSlayer]

You cannot challenge that assertion. You, with your 150 year lifespan, at best, have nothing to challenge an aeons old entity with. They could've included an option, probably, but it would lead nowhere.

And please don't bring up the Quarian/Geth peace. 2 weeks peace <<< 1,000,000,000 years (minimum). The pattern was observed even before the Catalyst was created. There really isn't much to challenge.

Please. If we're supposed to defer to their "superior" judgement, why did we bother fighting the Reaper harvest at all? Even if it led nowhere, it's better to have the option than to watch Shepard cave to its assertion without questioning its validity in any way.

I find it funny that the glowbrat personally caused two out of the three synthetic/organic conflicts we're aware of (Zha'til and the Heretics) when it was specifically charged with preventing these conflicts, not instigating them to justify its own existence.

[Bad King]

A pro-human 'philosophy' is really not something that should be catered to.

 

Thankfully, it isn't.

 

It's ultimately a silly choice that survives on the generousity of purposefully contrived writing. As it should be. It's a good thing and good writing. As natural as it might be for such choices to doom to player for being pointlessly hostile based on a philosophy that only really exists because the game says so, it wouldn't be very fun. And making a fun, functioning game has to come first.

So limiting roleplaying options in an rpg is a good thing? You must be right at home in Mass Effect 3.

[Bob from Accounting]

Uh, no, that's precisely the opposite of what I said. Did you even read?

 

No, I fully support the inclusion of silly evil choices in games. Of course, saying 'silly evil' is rather redundent, isn't it?

[themikefest]

A pro-human 'philosophy' is really not something that should be catered to.

 

Thankfully, it isn't.

 

It's ultimately a silly choice that survives on the generousity of purposefully contrived writing. As it should be. It's a good thing and good writing. As natural as it might be for such choices to doom to player for being pointlessly hostile based on a philosophy that only really exists because the game says so, it wouldn't be very fun. And making a fun, functioning game has to come first.

So when you play a game you only do one thing and not try anything else the game offers?

 

Whatever the game offers, good or bad, I will play it that way becasue it adds replay value. That is one of the reason's I've played ME3 so many times

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A pro-human 'philosophy' is really not something that should be catered to.

 

Thankfully, it isn't.

 

It's ultimately a silly choice that survives on the generousity of purposefully contrived writing. As it should be. It's a good thing and good writing. As natural as it might be for such choices to doom to player for being pointlessly hostile based on a philosophy that only really exists because the game says so, it wouldn't be very fun. And making a fun, functioning game has to come first.

 

Do I detect a massive tunnel vision here?

 

You come here proclaiming that it isn't fun. Yet people are having fun doing it.

 

It seems that you don't like it because you wouldn't have fun doing it. Don't play it if you don't have fun with it. But don't tell others what's fun and what's not.

[Bob from Accounting]

Err...no...I didn't say it's not fun at all. It's often very fun.

 

What I said wouldn't be fun is having the game react 'realistically' to evil choices. For example, it would probably be 'realistic' for Shepard and other human leaders to face some pretty severe consequences for spouting a fanatically pro-human dogma, letting the Council die, and declaring humans the supreme leaders of the galaxy (over much more powerful races) at the end of ME 1.

 

However, such consequences would make ME 3 and even ME 2 unplayable. So such consequences slide. As I said, making a fun and functioning game has to come first.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Uh, no, that's precisely the opposite of what I said. Did you even read?

 

No, I fully support the inclusion of silly evil choices in games. Of course, saying 'silly evil' is rather redundent, isn't it?

 

That's what heroic choices are for. They're silly and they're evil. 

 

In my opinion. You selectively close off any possibility of good from ever coming from an 'evil' action. 

 

Have you ever heard of moral relativism. More to the point, have you ever heard of player-centric morality in a game?

 

Tell me why you think something is good, and I can tell you why it's bad. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Err...no...I didn't say it's not fun at all. It's often very fun.

 

You just said it wasn't fun. Or are you saying that you should be punished for not being 'heroic'. I am being heroic. I'm just running on a different fuel than you.

[Xilizhra]

Do I detect a massive tunnel vision here?

 

You come here proclaiming that it isn't fun. Yet people are having fun doing it.

 

It seems that you don't like it because you wouldn't have fun doing it. Don't play it if you don't have fun with it. But don't tell others what's fun and what's not.

Well, you are, judging by the amounts of relative complaining that I've heard, having less fun than we who don't futilely rail against things like having enough decency to feel bad about the fall of whole planets.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Well, you are, judging by the amounts of relative complaining that I've heard, having less fun than we who don't futilely rail against things like having enough decency to feel bad about the fall of whole planets.

 

Why is it decency to feel bad about the fall of planets? Why do I have to feel sad about it? What is your objective argument that it's inherently bad for me to make Shepard not care?

[Xilizhra]

Why is it decency to feel bad about the fall of planets? Why do I have to feel sad about it? What is your objective argument that it's inherently bad for me to make Shepard not care?

Well, if you are, as you claimed prior, a sociopath, there's not really much point in trying to explain because you'll be unable to comprehend it.