No, it doesn't. Allowing people to perish in order to give a whole lot more people a fighting chance isn't murder.
Yes it is. Killing a person who poses no threat to you or others is murder. Doing this to a lot of people is mass murder. Doing it during wartime is a war crime.
Thus doing that makes them mass murderers and war criminals.
Yes it is. Killing a person who poses no threat to you or others is murder.
Allowing a person to die isn't the same as killing them. Not in any way, shape or form.
By your logic, I would be a "murderer" if I saw my neighbors dog in the road and chose not to get him out of the road (because it's not my dog) and 5 minutes later he gets hit by a car.
Good thing you don't practice law.
Allowing a person to die isn't the same as killing them. Not in any way, shape or form.
By your logic, I would be a "murderer" if I saw my neighbors dog in the road and chose not to get him out of the road (because it's not my dog) and 5 minutes later he gets hit by a car.
Good thing you don't practice law.
Blowing up a Relay to erase all evidence, as well as all witnesses, is not allowing a person to die. It is killing them.
There's a big difference in not being able to stop something and being the one who did that thing. Blowing up a Relay on purpose like the person I replied to suggested is the latter.
Blowing up a Relay to erase all evidence, as well as all witnesses, is not allowing a person to die. It is killing them.
There's a big difference in not being able to stop something and being the one who did that thing. Blowing up a Relay on purpose is the latter.
And you're referring to the Alpha Relay? Or are you referring to some more speculation regarding ark theory?
If it's the former we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
And you're referring to the Alpha Relay? Or are you referring to some more speculation regarding ark theory?
If it's the former we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
I'm referring to the latter. A poster suggested a hypothetical scenario that the people behind the Ark would destroy a Relay to wipe out all evidence of the project's existence, including all the people in that system. I then expressed a desire that if that scenario is true, I would like to have those people responsible for the act punished for it. They told me to grow up, a discussion began, and that's when you entered the discussion.
I'm referring to the latter. A poster suggested a hypothetical scenario that the people behind the Ark would destroy a Relay to wipe out all evidence of the project's existence, including all the people in that system. I then expressed a desire that if that scenario is true, I would like to have those people responsible for the act punished for it. They told me to grow up, a discussion began, and that's when you entered the discussion.
Yeah, I got all that. The Alpha Relay came up as well. So, I was just clarifying which you were currently referring to.
Indeed the colony there was doomed regardless if the alpha relay was destroyed or not, its destruction was a necessary evil.You (I assume you are American ) do not punish war crimes or criminals as a matter of course.
Especially not if they are 1) useful or 2) on the same side.
Making sacrifices for the greater good is sometimes necessary; the alpha relay is one such example.
You fail at reading. It's not another large scale project, in my example, it is the space station/ships they need to build to house and feed the "hundred of thousands" of people required to built the Crucible.
Same thing applies to said station as well since you need to get the necessary resources and personal to build it in the first place.
True, but irrelevant. The Reapers could theoretically destroy either or both projects before completion, but that's a risk you have to run. The difference between the projects is that you need to keep the ark secret after it's launched, but not the Crucible.How do you figure? If the ark doesn't leave before the Crucible fires, it has no point. Therefore the Reapers have an equal chance of locating both.
That would be a pretty stupid strategy. It's also incoherent with firing on the Crucible as it attempts to dock, since damaging the Crucible can make Synthesis impossible while preserving Destroy and/or Control.And with all the resources needed for both projects, they would have found them. For all we know, the only reason the Reapers didn't go for the Crucible is because it could work for their goals ie Synthesis.
Would knowing about the ark really help with that? Anyway, I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to tell Shepard, but unless you're going to see a real increase in mission efficiency from an informed Shepard, it's not worth doingThe strain on Shepard is the same regardless of who's Shepard it is. All Shepards react to the death of the child and the billions of others they cannot save, having nightmares about it as a result.
So you'd actually prefer that the human race go extinct rather than have it survive that way? You're going full Kantian?Don't tell other posters to grow up. Your viewpoint is no more valid than anyone else's.
Genocide is genocide. The whole "ruthless calculus" defense is not a valid one. It makes the people who accept it no better than the Reapers, and thus deserve the same punishment.
So if Ark Theory is confirmed on E3, we can't call it theory anymore, can we?
We can call it a crap plot.
Indeed the ME series doesn't need another Lazarus project-esque plot device.
We don't know yet if Andromeda is explained through a Lazarus-type plot device. Even if Ark theory is legit, it won't necessarily be like the people Who created it believe it is.Indeed the ME series doesn't need another Lazarus project-esque plot device.
We don't know yet if Andromeda is explained through a Lazarus-type plot device. Even if Ark theory is legit, it won't necessarily be like the people Who created it believe it is.
Granted, there Are chances for yet again a space magic plot device. Ad there's the change they Made some crap to for all the three endings in one single outcome.
To be honest I'd be wary of any choice Bioware would make to craft a new ME game. At this point I'm glad to just see What they did, and enjoy BSN's reaction.
I don't really have high hopes for its explanation/implementation.
I don't really have high hopes for its explanation/implementation.
So if Ark Theory is confirmed on E3, we can't call it theory anymore, can we?
I have a feeling we are going to be told the game is set in Andromeda during E3, but they are not going to explain how we get there. I really hope they do.
If they show just a trailer, yeah, I think they Might Not explore all the details.I have a feeling we are going to be told the game is set in Andromeda during E3, but they are not going to explain how we get there. I really hope they do.
It's not as simple as "slap a FTL drive on it and you got an ark". They still have to solve the issues of intergalactic travel, like food, water, and air for various races for centuries of travel or a way to keep the FTL drive from cooking them all since there is nowhere to discharge in the void between galaxies.
Not necessairly. Suppose that we have the same infrastructure used to build the Crucible and high officers of the Alliance discover a "new" mass relay (or whatever you may call it) that opens a wormhole to god knows where. They understand that saving some is better than saving none, so they attach an FTL drive to the massive infrastructure used to build the crucible and send it through the wormhole. Whatever place it leads, it is certainly better than a Milky Way overrun by the reapers.
And yes, that could be plaussible because in war time, all the information must be compartmentalized and we only know what Shepard knows, which IS NOT everything the high officers know (and even among theme, there is no officer that has the full information about everything that is going on). This is because there are many risks that are associated with knowing detailed information. For example, reapers and leviathans can read minds and so they can know whatever Shepard knows, and officers in the Alliance know that, so they use what is commonly known as "counterintelligence", i.e., feed Shepard with valid info, but not all of it and do more important stuff on the background, in order to distract and deviate attention from the plan B or other things they need to keep secret.
Remember guys and gals, one of the biggest themes on the Mass Effect series is deception at a grand scale and the Ark theory fits within it 
Not necessairly. Suppose that we have the same infrastructure used to build the Crucible and high officers of the Alliance discover a "new" mass relay (or whatever you may call it) that opens a wormhole to god knows where. They understand that saving some is better than saving none, so the just attach an FTL drive to the massive infrastructure used to build the crucible and send it through the wormhole. Whatever place it leads, it is certainly better than a Milky Way overrun by the reapers.
I was thinking more along the lines of a scenario that doesn't involve a wormhole or some other Deus Ex Machina. Obviously if something like that occurred, the limitations would disappear.
Not necessairly. Suppose that we have the same infrastructure used to build the Crucible and high officers of the Alliance discover a "new" mass relay (or whatever you may call it) that opens a wormhole to god knows where. They understand that saving some is better than saving none, so they attach an FTL drive to the massive infrastructure used to build the crucible and send it through the wormhole. Whatever place it leads, it is certainly better than a Milky Way overrun by the reapers.
And yes, that could be plaussible because in war time, all the information must be compartmentalized and we only know what Shepard knows, which IS NOT everything the high officers know (and even among theme, there is no officer that has the full information about everything that is going on). This is because there are many risks that are associated with knowing detailed information. For example, reapers and leviathans can read minds and so they can know whatever Shepard knows, and officers in the Alliance know that, so they use what is commonly known as "counterintelligence", i.e., feed Shepard with valid info, but not all of it and do more important stuff on the background, in order to distract and deviate attention from the plan B or other things they need to keep secret.
Remember guys and gals, one of the biggest themes on the Mass Effect series is deception at a grand scale and the Ark theory fits within it
Except for the fact that most if not all the engineers,builders etc. in the galaxy are working on the crucible project a project that is already putting a huge strain on the galaxies economy. Building an ark ship along side the crucible will make the stain even worse since its going to require a lot of resources to build most of the resources are already being used in the war effort or the crucible, if resources not going to the war effort or crucible are going to be noticed. Not to mention like the crucible the scale of the project will mean rumors of its existence will spread so there is no way it can stay secret forever.
Apparently to escape having to make lots of canon from the ME Trilogy, they write themselves out of the corner by moving the setting to another galaxy.
Paragon Destroy is the only viable canon that allows for the series to continue rather they admit it or not. And the Leviathans should have been the next foe logically. By leaving the Milky Way they leave all the iconic Mass Effect stuff behind. I'm sure people would like to see the New Citadel, Rannoch, civil Tuchanka, the Church of Shepard and Latter Day Squadmates, etc. The way I see it they are going to have to face their own mishaps to ever have any true sequel.
Firstly, it's not supposed to be a "true sequel." They're not continuing the story of Shepard. Secondly, any of the endings are a viable jumping off point for a new game. Thirdly, the Leviathans would be a poor enemy considering their opponents already know their weakness.
Paragon Destroy is the only viable canon that allows for the series to continue rather they admit it or not.
Except for the fact that most if not all the engineers,builders etc. in the galaxy are working on the crucible project a project that is already putting a huge strain on the galaxies economy. Building an ark ship along side the crucible will make the stain even worse since its going to require a lot of resources to build most of the resources are already being used in the war effort or the crucible, if resources not going to the war effort or crucible are going to be noticed. Not to mention like the crucible the scale of the project will mean rumors of its existence will spread so there is no way it can stay secret forever.
You failed reading what I wrote. True, the crucible projet was a huge strain in galaxy's economy, BUT the crucible couldn't be built by itself. It must have been built in a space shipyard (or something similar) and that is added as well to the cost of the project. There are numbers of ways of conceiling costs and resources from their true purposes and that could be seen even today. You could build a "glorified shipyard" that could work as an ark ship as a plan B.
In fact, military in the world do that all the time. If a country says "oohh we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these few brand new F-16", do you really think those few F-16 costed that? Sure, they spent that much money, but not only on those F-16, but on other stuff as well that they "masked" under that purchase and only the top guys at the military force knows exactly what was bought and how much of it.
Again, remember guys: this is war we're talking about and Shepard may have been fed with a lot of intel, but clearly not all of it, as he/she wasn't a really top officer (like a commander in chief or a really high admiral).
Retour en haut