1331 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's actually not my personal morals. 

 

It's the essence of the standards of morals represented in the geneva convention and agree upon by presumably a majority of people. 

 

 

 

Personally I'm much more non-caring than that. Ie. that if you declare war you should be prepared to potentially get wiped out completely. I think that would lead to a bit more resistance to starting wars. 

 

As Dr. house put it: If you really wanted people to drive carefully, you'd mount a machete on the steering column aimed at their necks. 

 

It's still anthropocentric to bring it up in regards to a separate entity that not only exists entirely outside the parameters of the Convention, but beyond the biology and essence of human culture and ethics. It's inappropriate to cite it as an example against an alien in their own conflict.

[Obadiah]

Now I gotta step in here and point out that a narrative is being worked on poorly when the beginning material is being changed to suit the message someone wants to make.

You're assuming that. The narrative I saw with respect to the Geth was always one where we were going to find out what happened here, and it would change people's perspective on the Geth (starting with their religious acts and Quarian music).

[Obadiah]

...
How exactly does a group go from having to hide out in civilian houses to survive, to wiping out 99% of a population distributed across multiple planets in the course of a single year? It's ludicrous.

You clearly think 99% of Quarians dead is a relevant piece of information, but how many people have you told that to that change their mind on the Morning War?

[DeinonSlayer]

You clearly think 99% of Quarians dead is a relevant piece of information, but how many people have you told that to that change their mind on the Morning War?

At least three that I remember. One of them earlier in this thread.

[78stonewobble]

It's still anthropocentric to bring it up in regards to a separate entity that not only exists entirely outside the parameters of the Convention, but beyond the biology and essence of human culture and ethics. It's inappropriate to cite it as an example against an alien in their own conflict.

 

Offcourse it's anthropocentric, just like every other point of view and oppinion voiced here. Are they also inappropriate? 

 

Exactly where were we asked to state points of view from ie. a quarian, asari, prothean, krogan, geth or klingon point of view of morality? 

 

Let me give you the prothean one right now. Everything the geth did was a-okay, because if you can win like the quarians, then you deserve it. 

 

End of that discussion. 

[Obadiah]

At least three that I remember. One of them earlier in this thread.

So... what... 10 maximum? Out of how many people total?

[DeinonSlayer]

So... what... 10 maximum? Out of how many people total?

I'm not playing this game with you. It's a significant fact (though, I imagine, an inconvenient one) which has an impact on people's judgement when they're informed about it. Period.

The only reason to bury it is to try to cast the Geth as... how did AssaultSloth put it? "Gentle, frolicking, peace-loving victims who never did anything wrong."

[AlanC9]

Unlike a machine, I have to eat, sleep, see a doctor if sick or injured. I get older and slower. I eventually will die. A machine stays the same or improved with upgrades. It breaks, it can be repaired back to the way it was. If destroyed, it can be rebuilt or just go get another one.

So the defining characteristic of life is..... inconvenience?

A sufficiently advanced technology could do away with all of these problems. Would that degrade humanity?

[78stonewobble]

Well now I wonder how many Geth programmes the Qurians have offed?

 

Billions? Trillions? 

[Obadiah]

I'm not playing this game with you. It has an impact on at least some people's judgement when they're informed about it. Period.

The point is, 99% by itself not that important. If it didn't change most people's minds, it wasn't that important, and the writers got it right. It is not their job to fill the game with every piece of information you think is relevant. Everyone knows that the Geth almost wiped out the Quarians and drove them from their home - that's the relevant piece of information. Every time you bring up the slaughter or "genocide" of the Quarians, without doing the same for the Geth, you're turning the story into an advocacy for one side.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

You're assuming that. The narrative I saw with respect to the Geth was always one where we were going to find out what happened here, and it would change people's perspective on the Geth (starting with their religious acts and Quarian music).

 

Changing someones perspective doesnt mean you change the starting point repeatedly.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Offcourse it's anthropocentric, just like every other point of view and oppinion voiced here. Are they also inappropriate? 

 

Exactly where were we asked to state points of view from ie. a quarian, asari, prothean, krogan, geth or klingon point of view of morality? 

 

Let me give you the prothean one right now. Everything the geth did was a-okay, because if you can win like the quarians, then you deserve it. 

 

End of that discussion. 

 

This is a red herring and tu quoque fallacy. You're appealing to hypocrisy as justification for your assertion. That doesn't not support your point. It's a hindrance to your argument. Revise it or leave it. As, well it's also a strawman of another position that is held by a separate party. 

 

It is inappropriate. Your argument is illogical. 

[DeinonSlayer]

The point is, 99% by itself not that important. If it didn't change most people's minds, it wasn't that important, and the writers got it right. It is not their job to fill the game with every piece of information you think is relevant. Everyone knows that the Geth almost wiped out the Quarians and drove them from their home - that's the relevant piece of information. Every time you bring up the slaughter or "genocide" of the Quarians, without doing the same for the Geth, you're turning the story into an advocacy for one side.

Hardly. The attempt to wipe out the Geth is, and should be, mentioned. T!t for tat. People only hear that the Quarians were "driven off" when the reality is that only a fraction of a fraction of the species survived to be driven off.

In a similar vein, it's been argued to you before that ME3 had no character to intelligently articulate the reasons for the genophage as Mordin did in ME2 - its only advocates in ME3 are a shrill racist whom we're railroaded into arguing with (and who is insulted behind her back by her subordinates for good measure), and Lieutenant Tolan, who (unlike the uncharacteristically cheerful and now cure-friendly(!) Kirrahe) does not bow at the altar of The Shepard and dies soon after.

Same deal here. For the most part, in ME3, it falls on Renegade Shepard to articulate the Quarians' own position for them, whereas the Geth lead you around by the nose for half an hour with no dialogue options.

[Obadiah]

Hardly. The attempt to wipe out the Geth is, and should be, mentioned. T!t for tat. People only hear that the Quarians were "driven off" when the reality is that only a fraction of a fraction of the species survived to do so.
...

I disagree. The "tat" we got from the Quarians was the Koris mission where we found out their real live civilians were pulled into the attack on Rannoch that they didn't support, and were being killed by the Geth because of it. We barely got anything on Geth being killed in the attack. There's plenty of advocacy laid out for the Quarians, and adding 99% figure of them dead from the Morning War 300 year previous would have added very little to nothing on the player's understanding or decision.

[78stonewobble]

This is a red herring and tu quoque fallacy. You're appealing to hypocrisy as justification for your assertion. That doesn't not support your point. It's a hindrance to your argument. Revise it or leave it. As, well it's also a strawman of another position that is held by a separate party. 

 

It is inappropriate. Your argument is illogical. 

 

It is entirely hypocritical to critique me, for participating in the the debate from a human perspective, when every other poster does the exact same thing, yourself included.

 

I have no need for a counter argument. You have not made an argument as to why it is supposedly inappropriate for humans to discuss a fictional alien situation from an anthropocentric point of view. 

 

Other than offcourse, it's just your point of view and thats just ironic. 

 

Perhaps the entire point of the debate is exactly to subject the fictional alien situation to our anthropocentric point of view. In which case it's entirely approproate. Concidering the fictional alien situation is presented to humans it actually seems likely. 

[DeinonSlayer]

I disagree. The "tat" we got from the Quarians was the Koris mission where we found out their real live civilians were pulled into the attack on Rannoch that they didn't support, and were being killed by the Geth because of it. We barely got anything on Geth being killed in the attack. There's plenty of advocacy laid out for the Quarians, and adding 99% figure of them dead from the Morning War 300 year previous would have added very little to nothing on the player's understanding or decision.

Not sure what you're talking about, "barely mentioned." We've got Legion being weepy about programs lost on the sphere, the entire consensus propaganda reel showing Geth being killed in the war (the footage stops before it can show the Noble Farmer shooting back), "this is like destroying a city, isn't it?", etc. We got hammered for half an hour with Geth advocacy.

If the 99% figure is so unimportant in your mind, why such resistance to including it? They managed to find room in their word budget for every piddly Citadel reg the Quarians were breaking, including Farixen which doesn't even apply to them, and Gerrel "causing trouble on the Turian border" which was never elaborated on or mentioned before or since - they made it up on the spot to stain them further. The only reason you want the 99% stat omitted is because it makes the Geth look bad.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It is entirely hypocritical to critique me, for participating in the the debate from a human perspective, when every other poster does the exact same thing, yourself included.

 

I have no need for a counter argument. You have not made an argument as to why it is supposedly inappropriate for humans to discuss a fictional alien situation from an anthropocentric point of view. 

 

Other than offcourse, it's just your point of view and thats just ironic. 

 

Perhaps the entire point of the debate is exactly to subject the fictional alien situation to our anthropocentric point of view. In which case it's entirely approproate. Concidering the fictional alien situation is presented to humans it actually seems likely. 

 

You've changed my argument; For one, I'm not saying anything about any other posters. I'm saying that your attempt to subject judgement on the topic is inappropriate based on justifications for said judgement off of a document that has no application in this setting. I am critiquing your usage of the document. You're changing my own words to say that I am calling for a halt to an anthropocentric view on a macro-scale and again arguing to hypocrisy against me and others. We aren't doing the same thing as you. The hypocrisy is entirely on you, as is the illogical implication for appealing to such hypocrisies. You have provided no counter-argument so to speak as to why it is relevant to involve a document that I have already broken down as unrelated and unconcerned with the issue. Your point is broken. Shifting the blame to me does not fix your point. It is a failed point, and in absence of justification, a failed argument, and an irrational perspective. It is ignored as irrelevant and irrational.

[Obadiah]

If the 99% figure is so unimportant in your mind, why such resistance to including it?

I don't care if "99%" is included, I just don't think it was a failure that is was NOT included. To discuss the Geth/Quarian presentation on the level you are is similar to discussing the romances by the time spent on the love scenes - its an incredibly petty way to look at the presentation. The player has to understand these two factions and eventually decide on one or to resolve the conflict. One of them, the Geth, has already joined or become enslaved by the Reapers, an enemy that the player actively fights against. And the player has to trust that this faction won't become enslaved by the Reapers later on, as the Rachni may have earlier.
 
Players already understand that the Geth almost wiped out the Quarians, 99% dead or war over within a year will not change their perception.

BUT, if you're going to advocate for clarity, ie. 99% and "slaughter" on the Quarian side, to be intellectually honest you should be arguing for percentages and descriptions on the Geth side. Otherwise, you're advocating for a bias.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Players who began at ME3 do not understand that, not really. 

Of course, people beginning at ME3 are just doing it wrong. Just like watching/reading Return of the King before Fellowship, or Return of the Jedi before Star Wars.

They deserve no sympathy.  

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Players who began at ME3 do not understand that, not really. 

Of course, people beginning at ME3 are just doing it wrong. Just like watching/reading Return of the King before Fellowship, or Return of the Jedi before Star Wars.

They deserve no sympathy.  

 

I'll be honest, I think anyone who bought ME3 without having ever played the other two games should have had a message telling them to play the other two games first to access the game.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

I'll be honest, I think anyone who bought ME3 without having ever played the other two games should have had a message telling them to play the other two games first to access the game.

Sounds good. Maybe throw in a derogatory message, to hit home the point. 

[Deathsaurer]

That's not good from a business perspective. Moving on... I wonder what the exact percentage of people on BSN that made peace are. I know it's going to be an absurdly high percentage that doesn't reflect the rest of the fanbase at all but that's kinda the point. We're splitting hairs here because most of us have all 3 games and know how to avoid this choice entirely.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

That's not good from a business perspective. Moving on... I wonder what the exact percentage of people on BSN that made peace are. I know it's going to be an absurdly high percentage that doesn't reflect the rest of the fanbase at all but that's kinda the point. We're splitting hairs here because most of us have all 3 games and know how to avoid this choice entirely.

It is good from a business perspective. It's telling people to but they other two games. It's basically advertisement, but free. 

[Deathsaurer]

I guess that buy DLC message at the end of ME3 was a good idea then.

[Vigilant111]

It is good from a business perspective. It's telling people to but they other two games. It's basically advertisement, but free. 

 

Yeah, I hate that, and they already made the point by the save import system