657 réponses à ce sujet

[Riven326]

I think the only moral dilemma that was actually successful in Mass Effect was the decision you had to make in Bring Down the Sky.

[Revan Reborn]

I think the only moral dilemma that was actually successful in Mass Effect was the decision you had to make in Bring Down the Sky.

I honestly don't even remember that DLC for the first game because it was so forgettable. The batarians were planning on destroying a colony or something? I don't even remember. I just chose the paragon option. I don't remember anything particularly challenging in terms of the choices that had to be made.

[UpUpAway]

I honestly don't even remember that DLC for the first game because it was so forgettable. The batarians were planning on destroying a colony or something? I don't ieven remember. I just chose the paragon option. I don't remember anything particularly challenging in terms of the choices that had to be made.

 

Yeah, for this reason, I would put it as one of the least successful moral dilemmas presented in the game.  It boiled down to more a tactical decision whether or not to try to save the girl and let the bad guy go (for now as it was dialogued) or threaten to kill the bad guy right away, thereby allowing him time to kill the girl before being able to get to him.  The fusion torches propelling the asteroid towards the colony had already been stopped at the point this allegedly big decision was to be made.

[Riven326]

I honestly don't even remember that DLC for the first game because it was so forgettable. The batarians were planning on destroying a colony or something? I don't even remember. I just chose the paragon option. I don't remember anything particularly challenging in terms of the choices that had to be made.

Play it again.

[Prince Enigmatic]

Just going to put my cat among the pigeons here, and argue (it may already have been on this thread) that the decision at the end of Overlord was a moral one. At least for me. 

[Riven326]

Just going to put my cat among the pigeons here, and argue (it may already have been on this thread) that the decision at the end of Overlord was a moral one. At least for me. 

But it was so stupid. Who's going to leave the guy there to suffer other than a person who's already a sadistic *******? The choice in Bring Down the Sky is the only decision in all of Mass Effect that really had no wrong choice and was a true dilemma because of it.

 

1. Let the terrorists go to save hostages. You save the hostages, but the terrorists are free and could harm others.
2. Kill the terrorists. You stop the terrorists from hurting anyone else, but the hostages die in the process.

[Prince Enigmatic]

But it was so stupid. Who's going to leave the guy there to suffer other than a person who's already a sadistic *******? The choice in Bring Down the Sky is the only decision in all of Mass Effect that really had no wrong choice and was a true dilemma because of it.

 

1. Let the terrorists go to save hostages. You save the hostages, but the terrorists are free and could harm others.
2. Kill the terrorists. You stop the terrorists from hurting anyone else, but the hostages die in the process.

 

It was more for me exploring morality, or complete and utter lack thereof on the behalf of Dr. Gavin Archer. About what Cerberus has driven this man and his ambition to do.

 

I agree with you on Bring Down The Sky in terms of its moral dilemma, but I also found the DLC as a whole, not the ending, a little underwhelming. 

[RatThing]

But it was so stupid. Who's going to leave the guy there to suffer other than a person who's already a sadistic *******? The choice in Bring Down the Sky is the only decision in all of Mass Effect that really had no wrong choice and was a true dilemma because of it.

 

 

Is there really such a great difference between letting an innocent person die (BdtS) or continue suffering (Overlord) if it is supposedly for the greater good?

[Quarian Master Race]

But it was so stupid. Who's going to leave the guy there to suffer other than a person who's already a sadistic *******? 

Someone who considers the suffering and possible death of a single person worth the chance of preventing the suffering and loss of millions of lives that the geth will (and do, come ME3) cause by continuing to exist in an uncontrolled state? 

In isolation, it's an easy decision in favour of continuing the research IMO. The problem was trusting that Cerberus's mad science methods actually produce results (they eventually don't) and whether you'd be okay with TIM having control of the geth (better than them being completely uncontrolled, but probably not good for anyone but Cerberus and maybe humanity).

[UpUpAway]

But it was so stupid. Who's going to leave the guy there to suffer other than a person who's already a sadistic *******? The choice in Bring Down the Sky is the only decision in all of Mass Effect that really had no wrong choice and was a true dilemma because of it.

 

1. Let the terrorists go to save hostages. You save the hostages, but the terrorists are free and could harm others.
2. Kill the terrorists. You stop the terrorists from hurting anyone else, but the hostages die in the process.

 

The dilemma in BDTS doesn't really exist because there is no solid indication that Balak is either going to or is even capable of threatening another colony on the same sort of scale as the threat the player just circumvented.  It gets worse because, either way, Balak arms the bombs; and it's unclear why suddenly Shepard has the time to go around disarming them and why the one in the room with the hostages is either left unarmed or the girl disarms it as well).  If the latter, then the girl should have had the time to have conceivably disarmed the bomb in that room after after or as Shepard shoots Balak anyways.

 

The fact that the game clearly indicates that the pursuit of Balak would continue in earnest afterwards makes it clear that a "preferred" choice has been presented by the devs.  There is no moral point to sacrificing the girl when the implication is that Balak isn't going to be able to really harm anyone else anyways because he's going to be too busy being on the run from Shepard and the Alliance.

[Master Warder Z_]

Someone who considers the suffering and possible death of a single person worth the chance of preventing the suffering and loss of millions of lives that the geth will (and do, come ME3) cause by continuing to exist in an uncontrolled state? 

 

Well only to the suit rats, they don't bother anyone else after the Eden Prime War.

 

Not really anyway, all their enclaves are out in remote space tucked away to where only the stupid and Cerberus personal go.

 

And the Quarians launched a invasion ._. I don't blame them for fighting back, allying with the Reapers crosses the line but until then I am completely fine with them keeping territory Humanity has no interest in, no biggie to me.

[Riven326]

It was more for me exploring morality, or complete and utter lack thereof on the behalf of Dr. Gavin Archer. About what Cerberus has driven this man and his ambition to do.

 

I agree with you on Bring Down The Sky in terms of its moral dilemma, but I also found the DLC as a whole, not the ending, a little underwhelming. 

I thought the the rest of the DLC was underwhelming as well. But the decision you had to make was really the only time in all three games where it was a true dilemma.

 

Is there really such a great difference between letting an innocent person die (BdtS) or continue suffering (Overlord) if it is supposedly for the greater good?

There was no greater good with Overlord. It really was just the product of a sick mind at work and only needed the assistance of another sick mind in order to continue. There is no moral dilemma at all; it's obvious what the right choice is as soon as you realize what's really going on.

[Prince Enigmatic]

Let's all agree that perhaps the biggest dilemma was whether to throw a Quiet party or an Energetic one.

[Riven326]

The dilemma doesn't really exist because there is no solid indication that Balak is either going to or is even capable of threatening another colony on the same sort of scale as the threat the player just circumvented.  It gets worse because, either way, Balak arms the bombs; and it's unclear why suddenly Shepard has the time to go around disarming them and why the one in the room with the hostages is either left unarmed or the girl disarms it as well).  If the latter, then the girl should have had the time to have conceivably disarmed the bomb in that room after after or as Shepard shoots Balak anyways.

 

The fact that the game clearly indicates that the pursuit of Balak would continue in earnest afterwards makes it clear that a "preferred" choice has been presented by the devs.  There is no point to sacrificing the girl when the implication is that Balak isn't going to be able to really harm anyone else anyways because he's going to be too busy being on the run from Shepard and the Alliance.

Yeah, let's go ahead and just assume that a terrorist won't continue being a terrorist just because he hasn't had the chance to do anything else at that moment.

[Vazgen]

Yay. Hopefully on a lesser scale than finishing interspecies wars lasting for ages by yelling. I'd prefer smaller scale dilemmas like in Zaeed's LM (but with a more compelling reason than Zaeed's revenge on the other side).

[UpUpAway]

Yeah, let's go ahead and just assume that a terrorist won't continue being a terrorist just because he hasn't had the chance to do anything else at that moment.

 

What priors did Balak as an individual actually have that indicated to Shepard he was a hardcore terrorist?  None.  Balak was an unknown.  And Shepard certainly indicated that, by standing aside, he was not really letting him go anyways.  He fully expected to catch him at some point.  Balak did not spring the additional bomb arming delay tactic on Shepard until after Shepard decides not to shoot Balak so the dilemma isn't really a dilemma at all... Do I con this joker into thinking I'm letting him go so I can save everyone or do I just let him kill someone first before pursuing him anyways?  The decision to allow Balak to kill the hostages only really expresses a lack of confidence Shepard would have to have in his own abilities to catch Balak immediately after convincing Balak to let the hostages go.  My Shep would be thinking, I'll step aside, he'll turn his back, the hostages will be safe, and then I'll just shoot him.  Shep's taking a risk, but no real dilemma... and he would have calculated his odds as being pretty favorable to boot.

 

The fact that no dilemma existed is also verified in ME3.  If Balak were such a terrorist threat, he would have been cited as being involved in the other Batarian terrorist plots revealed on the Citadel.  Balak, however, is portrayed mostly as a broken down, powerless individual with a small fleet that Shepard can convince him to give over to the Alliance just by basically staring him down.

 

A bigger question might be why Shepard found it necessary to go charging into that last facility putting the hostages immediately at risk when he had the Batarians trapped on the asteroid anyways.  He could have prevented Balak's escape just by taking a little time to disable all of Balak's shuttles before even entering the facility or have the Normandy just blow his ship out of orbit.

[RatThing]

There was no greater good with Overlord. It really was just the product of a sick mind at work and only needed the assistance of another sick mind in order to continue. There is no moral dilemma at all; it's obvious what the right choice is as soon as you realize what's really going on.

 

Supposedly the "greater good" in Overlord was to prevent a war with the Geth. And if that would have worked out then it could have been justified to leave David there (although hard to stomach of course) as it would have saved thousands of Quarians. So let's not pretend the game didn't give you any reasons for the renegade decision here. This isn't Morinth vs. Samara.

Sure it didn't turn out the way Dr. Archer promised, but I don't see the big difference between BdsD and Overlord. You let an innocent person suffer because maybe it will save more peole in the future. The Future however is always uncertain. Dr. Archers research could have worked and used for the greater good. The terrorist in BdtS (what was his name again?) could have been captured by other forces right after you let him go.

 

For the record, I freed David most of the times. Mostly because I distrusted Cerberus, but also as an emotional reaction to Davids situation.

[Quarian Master Race]

Well only to the suit rats, they don't bother anyone else after the Eden Prime War.

Not really anyway, all their enclaves are out in remote space tucked away to where only the stupid and Cerberus personal go.

Ignoring the....erm.....racism inherent in assigning differing moral value based upon the victim's species, this isn't really true. The geth support the Reaper genocide on all fronts, not just in the Veil. Those geth that escape destuction or rewrite over Rannoch continue supporting the Reapers to the bitter end as per the asari councilor. This is why you fight them everywhere in the canon multiplayer.

[UpUpAway]

For the record, I freed David most of the times. Mostly because I distrusted Cerberus, but also as an emotional reaction to Davids situation.

 

The dilemma presented in Overlord had, I believe, more to do with how people at the time the game was being written, were being recorded in the press as having a view of autistic persons as automatons and somehow less than persons.  It's a viewpoint that might seem ridiculous now... but was being expressed back then with alarming regularity.  If a player doesn't view David as a "person" the choice becomes more blurry.  Thankfully, IMO, to most people, the choice is pretty clear.  However, a similar moral dilemma could be extended to any situation where people are viewed as having less than equal rights.

[Riven326]

What priors did Balak as an individual actually have that indicated to Shepard he was a hardcore terrorist?  None.  Balak was an unknown.  And Shepard certainly indicated that, by standing aside, he was not really letting him go anyways.  He fully expected to catch him at some point.  Balak did not spring the additional bomb arming delay tactic on Shepard until after Shepard decides not to shoot Balak so the dilemma isn't really a dilemma at all... Do I con this joker into thinking I'm letting him go so I can save everyone or do I just let him kill someone first before pursuing him anyways?  The decision to allow Balak to kill the hostages only really expresses a lack of confidence Shepard would have to have in his own abilities to catch Balak immediately after convincing Balak to let the hostages go.  My Shep would be thinking, I'll step aside, he'll turn his back, the hostages will be safe, and then I'll just shoot him.  Shep's taking a risk, but no real dilemma... and he would have calculated his odds as being pretty favorable to boot.

 

The fact that no dilemma existed is also verified in ME3.  If Balak were such a terrorist threat, he would have been cited as being involved in the other Batarian terrorist plots revealed on the Citadel.  Balak, however, is portrayed mostly as a broken down, powerless individual with a small fleet that Shepard can convince him to give over to the Alliance just by basically staring him down.

 

A bigger question might be why Shepard found it necessary to go charging into that last facility putting the hostages immediately at risk when he had the Batarians trapped on the asteroid anyways.  He could have prevented Balak's escape just by taking a little time to disable all of Balak's shuttles before even entering the facility or have the Normandy just blow his ship out of orbit.

I don't care if he had priors or not, he's still a terrorist and there's no way for Shepard to know what Balak may or may not do by letting him go. That said, I can understand the other side of the argument too. The lose of life in the here and now might be more important to others than potential threats in the future. But don't try to frame this in a way so that Balak is just misunderstood or not a real threat to colonials and others.

[Master Warder Z_]

Ignoring the....erm.....racism inherent in assigning differing moral value based upon the victim's species, this isn't really true. The geth support the Reaper genocide on all fronts, not just in the Veil. Those geth that escape destuction or rewrite over Rannoch continue supporting the Reapers to the bitter end as per the asari councilor. This is why you fight them everywhere in the canon multiplayer.

 

Ignoring the dismissal of my point of it all happening because of the Quarian invasion, i will repeat myself I don't particularly care what they do with that worthless collection of systems Humanity has no interest in. So yeah, its completely true, not a peep from the Geth for the most part outside of less then ten incidents post Citadel Invasion in ME. 

 

Its no matter to me what happens in territory I don't assign value to, or to people who wage a war that prompts their arrival into the battlefields across the galaxy fate, its all inconsequential, also boyo I don't care about pixels in general, I told most people this my outlook is very Freiza esq.

 

 

Sums up my views on most fictional non human life.

 

So sure, keep assigning a term like 'racist' to pixels.

[UpUpAway]

I don't care if he had priors or not, he's still a terrorist and there's no way for Shepard to know what Balak may or may not do by letting him go. That said, I can understand the other side of the argument too. The lose of life in the here and now might be more important to others than potential threats in the future. But don't try to frame this in a way so that Balak is just misunderstood or not a real threat to colonials and others.

 

There's no way to know what ANYONE may or may not do... particularly when you have no history of them repeatedly trying to do what they just did.  By law, you can't convict someone on speculation... and you can't condemn innocent hostages to die based on pure speculation either.

 

As I said, my Shep would take a calculated chance in that moment and at least try to do both - save the girl and catch Balak.  In trying to do both, he would be derailed by Balak's "surprise bomb arming tactic." but that's not part of the "dilemma" you claim he faces.  As I said, the whole situation is avoidable by merely doing a little more to block off obvious avenues of escape ahead of time.

[Riven326]

There's no way to know what ANYONE may or may not do... particularly when you have no history of them repeatedly trying to do what they just did.  By law, you can't convict someone on speculation.  As I said, my Shep would take a calculated chance in that moment and at least try to do both - save the girl and catch Balak.

If someone commits and act of terrorism, are we supposed to just let that person go because there's no evidence that they won't do it again?

[Master Warder Z_]

If someone commits and act of terrorism, are we supposed to just let that person go because there's no evidence that they won't do it again?

 

I'd agree but that may be personal bias.

[Riven326]

Ignoring the....erm.....racism inherent in assigning differing moral value based upon the victim's species, this isn't really true. The geth support the Reaper genocide on all fronts, not just in the Veil. Those geth that escape destuction or rewrite over Rannoch continue supporting the Reapers to the bitter end as per the asari councilor. This is why you fight them everywhere in the canon multiplayer.

You suit rats are always so quick to shout racism, yet you want to commit genocide against the geth.