657 réponses à ce sujet

[UniformGreyColor]

The way I see it, the ultimate paragon in the eyes of Bioware is appealing to the good in your enemies, "the powah of luv" and all that nonsense.

 

Because the consequences of letting Balak go were having him cooperate with you come ME3, instead of the more realistic scenario of him actually being more successful in his next terror attack.(or getting killed trying)

 

It's somewhat similar to the childish concept in Harry Potter, where Good Guys only use disarm and stun spells against Bad Guys that fight to kill.

Or the Naruto concept of using the power of retarded friendship to subvert your enemies.

 

It's not always like this, but they tend to go on forays into rainbows and unicorn land from time to time.

 

This poses an interesting question. So the topic of "what is sentient?" has come up. Who's not to say that everything is sentient - that consciousness is within everything. If this is to even be considered then an individual is automatically put in the position to choose between his own survival and the well being of whatever it is that they are degradating what also has consciousness, or at least change its composition to the point where it is unrecognisable. So then because we choose life instead of self sacrifice we must acknowledge that to bring harm to another thing of consciousness in inevitable.

[Xen]

Well said. I don't understand the idea that beings have to suffer in order for morality to be assigned to them.

 

Pain is a survival mechanism. A necessary component of humans being made of flash, so that we can know when our body's integrity is in danger. Otherwise you can ignore that you broke a foot, bite through your tongue, etc. 

 

An advanced synthetic would have no need of pain. Presumably, they are able to determine whenever they have suffered any damage thanks to their internal sensors and systems. Sure, Legion can walk around with a hole in his chest that would cripple/kill any organic thanks to that,  but this doesn't mean it's totally OK to exterminate them. Dismissing a being as unworthy of life because it doesn't work exactly like a human seems ludicrous in a setting with flying jellyfish aliens and walking turtle-men with redundant organs that live more than a millenia.

They have to in order to render any sorts of actions against the being itself morally unjust. If it doesn't suffer, what basis is there for me to care about what happens to it? 

 

Physical pain is but one aspect of suffering, and humans or other animals can even be born without it (congenital analgesia), but it doesn't render them nonsentient. The issue is the ME synthetics also experience no mental or emotional aspects of suffering, like the ability to experience fear or loss. This is stated by the geth itself when Shep tries to make false analogies to describe its behaviour. No concrete reason is provided for geth motivations except programming, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion out of nowhere that the supposed "emotional" responses you cite are anything but a simulation aimed at increasing the synthetics's mathematical chance of fulfilling its programming via manipulation, rather than spontaneous sentience.

 

It doesn't automatically render destroying the synthetics to be just. It means that the justice of this decision is entirely contingent upon what it does in the calculation for the sentients their existence has an effect on. My conclusion would be that destroying them is only just if the option of controlling and minimizing suffering they inflict while maximizing their utility doesn't exist or is unreasonably difficult to obtain.

 

Hanar and krogan are sentient. Comparing them to synthetics is a false equivalence. Even the geth itself equated this sort of moralizing to "racism", and it essentially is insofar as one considers the geth to be lifeforms, in that it grossly devalues sentience simply because the geth doesn't posses it in an arbitrary attempt at asigning the two equivalent moral value.

Okay, consciousness is unprovable. How do you justify treating any non-human sentient life as entitled to rights?

Rephrase the question, as I've no idea what the premise is. Are you attempting to deny the existence of consciousness itself? Whether or not a sentient is human has no bearing on what "rights" it is entitled to. That is entirely based upon what consequences upon the aggregate pleasure/suffering scale allowing such "rights" would result in for all sentients, and is relative.

This definition is stupid. Animals feel pleasure and suffering. On what moral basis do you justify denying them full and equivalent rights? How can we deny the pleasure and pain experiencing dog the right to vote but not the krogan? This definition is beyond worthless in the real world.

Ok? Duh, of course they do. There is no such moral basis to deny them except their incapability of intellectually grasping the concept of or deriving pleasure from such rights. If the dog were capable of and cared for the right to vote, and could suffer if the request were denied, it would be entitled to consideration for such. Either way, it is entitled to not be subject to needless suffering nor unnecessarily denied pleasures it understands (i.e to be capable of living, feeding and reproduction as much as is reasonably prudent in regards to the same calculation for other sentients). Your opinion, and not one supported by any creature in possession of sentience in the "real world", all of whom seek to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for at least themselves to the best of their capability.

[Laughing_Man]

Hey, by the end of the series Harry Potter used two of the three Unforgivable Curses  Harry should have gotten life in Azkaban once the dust settled 

 

But at any rate, it's not like even the most goody-goody paladin Shep didn't get to mow down dozens or even hundreds of faceless enemies over the course of the game.  Not just reaper husks of geth platforms, but organics as well.  humans, turians, krogan, etc.

 

Oh please, don't get me started on Harry Potter...

 

And yes, the killing of a huge number of faceless enemies does conflict with the goody goody personality.

(even if theoretically they can coexist in a moral sense somehow, something like this tend to make a person much more hardened and cynical at best)

[MrFob]

how about the fact that the geth's outputs can universally and predictably be controlled by something as simple as introducing a rounding error in basic runtimes (Heretics and their virus). Or how about this?
https://www.youtube....N_jbvso#t=5m58s
^yeah, conscious, sentient beings no doubt. There's no question that they're toasters even with their magic Reaper code, let alone without. Input a command for anything, no matter how asinine, that bypasses their version of Malwarebytes, and they've no choice but to follow it. 

In EDI's case, you can do the same thing with "hardware blocks" or "shackles" (get it, its a totally subtle metaphor for slavery! You're obviously a mean racist if you disagree! Now look how cute it and Joker are together!).

Yea, you can hack the geth or EDI in the ME universe, so what? Reaper indoctrination does the exact same thing to organics. TIM somehow hacks himself into complete control over Shepard's and Anderson's bodies. Morinth can dominate people and make them willing to do what she wants. Even today I can put channelrhodopsin into a mouse brain and make it walk left whenever I switch on the blue light (could do the same to a human in theory, there is only morality stopping me). If the ways to attack someone's mind was the deciding factor, we'd not be better of.
 

Of course their hardware has sensors, in the same way my car has various temperature, fuel and emissions sensors that are all managed by a CPU to maintain optimal performance in varied external conditions. That doesn't mean it's sentient or conscious. What physical structural components do they have that are analogous to a brain/nervous system that would make such a thing possible, and what purpose did the quarians/humans have for including such a useless feature on a machine designed for hazardous, dangerous and backbreaking labour that a sentient couldn't tolerate, number crunching or being a disposable piece of military hardware?

Well, I am glad we cleared this thing with the sensors up because in your last post you claimed the opposite. And just for the record, I never said this alone means that they are sentient, you said it was required for it ("the sensory hardware necessary to achieve consciousness", which is not really something I would go ahead and sign right away either). So I think we can lay that point to rest.
As for the rest, why do humans have something as useless or discardable as an appendix? Oh right, it's evolution. Does it call our sentience into question? I think not and neither should the specifics of an AI body. It's the mind I am concerned with, not the body. And yes, they do have have something analogous to our brain/CNS, it's called an artificial neural network, the only difference is the implementation as software, not hardware. Both have specific strengths and weaknesses but (at least in the ME universe and possibly with enough research also in reality) both can maintain a sentient mind.
 

The writers elected not to tell us, or even make up some technobabble like "positronic brain", ergo I will continue to laugh at the idea that ME synthetics are somehow magically growing sentience out of thin air.

Well, actually, they did, here it is:

An artificial intelligence is a self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

 The next part (quoted below) is also relevant for this ...

 

No they aren't. Their "bodies" are inanimate objects with practically no connection to the software controlling them. Transferring the software from a server/bluebox into a platform doesn't fundamentally change it or give it any new capabilites beyond more varied means to interact with the physical world.

And again, this is contrary to what's stated as lore in the ME universe (from the same link as above):

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Not that I think this entire discussion of how humans relate to their bodies is necessarily relevant to the discussion of artificial sentience. I don't quite see why sentience cannot exist without the requirement to be tied to one specific body. It seems to me that is focusing very much on a human perspective.

 

Meanwhile, try pulling the brain and nervous system out of an organic without killing it. We apparently can't even do this in the MEverse with the Crucible magic, seeing as Shep has to die for the WBE garbage to happen in the Control ending.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, apart from the fact that the crucible is complete bogus anyway, according to you, a computer cannot store consciousness in any form. So what does it matter what happens to the human body? If I extrapolate from what you wrote so far, the control option of the crucible simply electrocuted dumb Shepard and created some new VI at the same time (because AIs actually don't exist), right?
 

Again, its far more analogous to the relationship between my car's ECU and its mechanical components than the connection between a sentient being's consciousness and body.

Not according to the codex article I quoted above. And even if that were the case, it's not an argument against sentience, it's an argument against a system that works exactly like a human being, that was never something I argued. What if we encountered an intelligence that was organic but didn't work like a mammal/humanoid? For example, the novel "The Swarm" by Frank Schaetzing has a great description of something like that. I wonder if you would wipe those kinds of races out as well.

 

I know because either explicitly or by implication that's the consensus of both modern and MEverse science according to every in universe expert on synthetic technologies (Xen, Archer, Sanders, Shu Qian) except one permutation of Tali (but only because knowing Legion made her experience the feelz), who doesn't even know the difference between sapience and sentience. If you have new information or a new in universe authority to support your claims, would you be so kind as to share it? Where does the discussed work "stipulate" that they do? Despite obvious writer intent, it seem to in fact stipulate the opposite, with arguments to the contrary entirely based upon Sheps stupid false equivalances (lol teh fearless machine went to teh reaperz cuz it were ascared of teh quarianz!!1one) and nonsensical pathos appeals like the retarded and utterly irrelevant "soul" question.

Until you provide this source, I'm going to operate on the more reasonable assumption that every action taken by a synthetic in the MEverse can be explained by pure programming alone. Being purely digital systems, they don't and can't even come close to defeating the Chinese room. Frankly, I'd be surprised if the vast majority of networked geth in the consensus could even pass the Turing test at any given point in time

I provided a 2 sources 2 posts above. You tried to dismiss them and I am arguing against you attempt. That is where we are at in this discussion. Also, now I am adding the quotes earlier in this post from the codex. It clearly states that AIs need "adaptive code" (clearly for the framework) and "education", they mak "independent decisions". That's part of the definition for an AI,  they are not programmed with doctrines or static code, they learn and experience just like you and me. It says so right there and nowhere in the ME universe have I seen an indication to the contrary (arguably apart from the catalyst which has never been clearly classified as an AI by anyone but himself).
 

an ironic question coming from someone attempting to argue what you are, to say the least. No I haven't read that nor heard of its authors, but there's plenty of transhumanist garbage out there for me to choose from, and I doubt this will change my mind if it is likewise. If I'm looking for actual information on the subject rather than ideologically charged new age religious nonsense, I'll stay with the works of renowned authors in the field like Norvig and Olshausen.
 
They are described as such in Revelation during the narration on the Geth Rebellion. Can't be bothered to find the novel right now for the exact quote.

Hmmm, I am not sure what the first sentence of this paragraph is about, nor do I know why you would bring trans-humanism or "ideologically charged new age religious nonsense" into it since no one was talking about such. But anyway, moving on. If you don't want to look up the authors that's fine (although their academic positions and references are given in the book itself), I am happy to go with e.g. Norvig, who writes almost the same stuff in all relevant regards in his book if that's more to your liking. It doesn't really change the argument.

[MrFob]

Sorry, had to do this in two posts because of forum restrictions.
 

What Tali does on the geth constantly can be described as oversimplification and false analogy, particularly in ME1 (she gets a bit better in ME2). She often served as the writers' mouthpiece on the subject, except they know even less about it than she does.
Don't patronize to me. The Bioware writers did that quite enough by attempting to imply I was a racist because I don't accept the same views on the subject as they (while hilariously meeting their own definition of "racist" by admitting that the geth and EDI aren't "alive" without the addition of plot magic in the 3rd game, and were by implication mindless toasters beforehand).

That is why I am going with Tali from ME1, because by ME3, things are getting really jumbled and this is the only half way decipherable explanation of the geth that is in line with what is told in the codex. By the time of ME3 at the very latest, the AI characters pretty much fall apart in the context of the pre-established background lore.
But honestly, I am ok with Tali in ME1, of course it's oversimplified. If the writers could explain exactly how to build an AI, that would be amazing. The basic framework that she tries to explain however - a simulated neural network, running on a computer cluster - is in its principles in line with current theories on artificial intelligence.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm not saying that I don't frequently put a bullet in his head.  I'm not saying that ultimate paragon is the way Bioware scored it... they obviously didn't.  I am saying that in general terms society tends to think of successfully capturing the bad guy while also saving any hostages to be a more paragon act than allowing the hostages to be killed in order to capture the bad guy.  There are events in human history that uphold that notion... the "better" heroes were able to do both and heroes who were not able to similarly spare hostages were decried in the media.  Similarly, the notion of letting a bad guy go temporarily to work up the food chain is a dilemma that law enforcement faces all the time.  I'll leave you all to continue arguing whether this is a "good" stance for a society to take or not.

 

Again, I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE HERE HOW THEY SHOULD RESOLVE THESE MORAL QUESTIONS.  The only person one should have to justify their choices in this game to is themselves.  On that note, I'm not going to justify any of my choices... and truth be told, I often flip them about depending on how I'm structuring my Shep's character during that playthrough... and he/she even doesn't always make those decisions based on anything more important than how they might affect his immediate crew (i.e. sometimes he thinks with his crotch).

 

That doesn't negate the fact that, in structuring the Balak dilemma, Bioware gave an "out" to the player that enables the player to believe they are selecting "both" options at the same time.  When that option of selecting "both" exists... a well costructed dilemma does not exist (IMO).  A similar issue exists with the Geth/Quarian war dilemma (I'm not talking about the synthesis ending here, but the war)... you can solve the war for both sides (i.e. peace), so for many players the "dilemma" of choosing AI vs. organics is just removed.  In that case, however, the dilemma can be reconstructed losely based on "war or peace" scenarios.  There IS indeed a hint of that in the Balak issue, but it's still really not that well developed from a "literary" perspective.  The genophage issue is better constructed in that Shep either cures the genophage or he/she doesn't.  The fact that he/she can attempt to lie to Wrex and the consequences of that lie don't alter the fact that he/she MUST decide on one of the options.

 

The original question of this thread was really would we like to see more of these sort of issues in ME:A.  My answer was Yeah, I would... even if some of them are not constructed perfectly (or even very well).  I still enjoy them.

 

Responding to the blue - it depends upon how dangerous the bad guy is and what he has done. Sometimes a bad guy can be turned to work for your side... i.e. a double agent. This would typically require that you have some goods on him, or make him a better offer than what he currently has going. This sort of thing happens in real life.

 

The Quarian-Geth issue is really more of a dilemma than one would imagine. There really is no out. If you really understand what the Geth truly are, then you realize that what Legion is doing is committing genocide as well. Legion is fundamentally changing what they are. They were a networked intelligence made up of numerous networked runtimes. After the Reaper Code is uploaded, each individual platform becomes an individual, something completely different. They are no longer Geth. They became Artificially Intelligent Mechs. They are no longer have a networked intelligence. 

 

So you are choosing to 1) Allow the Quarians to live and let the Geth die; 2) Let both the Quarians and the Geth die and allow a new synthetic life form to be created (side with Legion); 3) Allow the Quarians to live, let the Geth die and allow a new synthetic life form to be created - Peace. In every option, the Geth die.

 

The Rannoch situation was really misrepresented to the players because the writers didn't understand the Geth. See, Chris E'toile originally wrote the Geth, but he left BioWare before ME3 was written. The Pinocchio Code completely destroyed the way he wrote the Geth.

[Giantdeathrobot]

They have to in order to render any sorts of actions against the being itself morally unjust. If it doesn't suffer, what basis is there for me to care about what happens to it? 

 

Physical pain is but one aspect of suffering, and humans or other animals can even be born without it (congenital analgesia), but it doesn't render them nonsentient. The issue is the ME synthetics also experience no mental or emotional aspects of suffering, like the ability to experience fear or loss. This is stated by the geth itself when Shep tries to make false analogies to describe its behaviour. No concrete reason is provided for geth motivations except programming, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion out of nowhere that the supposed "emotional" responses you cite are anything but a simulation aimed at increasing the synthetics's mathematical chance of fulfilling its programming via manipulation, rather than spontaneous sentience.

 

It doesn't automatically render destroying the synthetics to be just. It means that the justice of this decision is entirely contingent upon what it does in the calculation for the sentients their existence has an effect on. My conclusion would be that destroying them is only just if the option of controlling and minimizing suffering they inflict while maximizing their utility doesn't exist or is unreasonably difficult to obtain.

 

Hanar and krogan are sentient. Comparing them to synthetics is a false equivalence. Even the geth itself equated this sort of moralizing to "racism", and it essentially is insofar as one considers the geth to be lifeforms, in that it grossly devalues sentience simply because the geth doesn't posses it in an arbitrary attempt at asigning the two equivalent moral value.

 

 

They have a clear sense of self-preservation. Even if they do not suffer in any way, which I contest, that alone is to me a basis one should care what happens to them. They're not rocks, that's for sure.

 

Respectfully, I feel the bolded is not what the games actually shows us. What is Legion's reaction to Shepard stopping the upload, if not fear and/or anger? Their decision not to destroy the Quarians because they weren't ready to deal with the consequences of this act, how is it not doubt? Same for Legion asking himself what his people did wrong? As to the latter, his programs are unable to come to a conclusion because they are too conflicted. I'd say that is easily an aspect of mental or emotional suffering, dobut so strong that you are unable to decide on a course of action. Or the sort of remorse they show when they keep Rannoch in relative good shape or Legion donates to charity in secret.

 

You actually do jump to a conclusion; that anything they express is programming or manipulation. Manipulation is certainly is a possibility, but one that isn't easily provable in-game, albeit of course we know the Geth are not above it. To the point of programming, how is that a counter-argument exactly? Even if their emotions were programmed in, they are no less emotions. Humans are hardwired to fear a wide variety of dangers, that doesn't mean the fear is fake in any way, it's just how we are. The very nature of the Geth also makes the ''simple programming'' argument dubious to me, too; they are highly complex beings that become only more complex when linked together. It very might well be the different between their programming and the one we know in real life is the same as the difference between a human's highly advanced nervous system, and an amoeba's rudimentary equivalent. Similar if you're being reductive, very different in actual practice.

 

Legion uses the ''judging all species like your own is racist'' line in a context that certainly doesn't imply we should value one being less than another. He says that judging all beings equally regardless of their charctertistics is racist. Which it is. The point here, I feel, is that the Geth have different characteristics and we shouldn't see them in the same way as we see an organic, for example that it's easier to judge them as a collective because they are linked and make decisions as a collective. I never got the feeling that he meant that comparing Geth and organics devalues the latter.

 

And even if the Geth weren't sentient, to me they are clearly sapient at the very least, since they are self-aware and have a sense of self-preservation. On this basis alone, I judge that they are as worthy of life as anything else or so close to it that dismissing them from a moral debate is nonsense as I see it. Dogs aren't capable of calculus, but I would consider any attempt to exterminate them as an atrocity of the highest order regardless, only possibly justifiable via practical arguments and not by moral ones at all.

[In Exile]

Rephrase the question, as I've no idea what the premise is. Are you attempting to deny the existence of consciousness itself? Whether or not a sentient is human has no bearing on what "rights" it is entitled to. That is entirely based upon what consequences upon the aggregate pleasure/suffering scale allowing such "rights" would result in for all sentients, and is relative.

 

Ok? Duh, of course they do. There is no such moral basis to deny them except their incapability of intellectually grasping the concept of or deriving pleasure from such rights. If the dog were capable of and cared for the right to vote, and could suffer if the request were denied, it would be entitled to consideration for such. Either way, it is entitled to not be subject to needless suffering nor unnecessarily denied pleasures it understands (i.e to be capable of living, feeding and reproduction as much as is reasonably prudent in regards to the same calculation for other sentients). Your opinion, and not one supported by any creature in possession of sentience in the "real world", all of whom seek to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for at least themselves to the best of their capability.

 

Oh, your point is stupid. That makes this easier. What exactly is the "the aggregate pleasure/suffering scale"? How do you measure whether someone is experiencing pain or pleasure? If the magnitude that someone feels pain and pleasure determines their rights - and you say this express, and in fact you go so far as to say that this is "relative", then does it follow that someone who experiences "more" pain or pleasure has more rights? That's idiotic. How do you even come up with  scale of pain or pleasure? Is nostalgia pain? Pleasure? If a species doesn't feel nostalgia but has orgasms that are thousands of times more plesurable, do they get more rights? Less rights?

 

Beyond that, your point is predicated on things that are impossible to prove. For example, you say that animals are "incapabi[le] of intellectually grasping the concept of or deriving pleasure from such rights". What does that mean? Can a child "intellectually grasp" the "concept" of deriving pleasure from having rights? Does that mean children shouldn't have rights? How do you prove whether someone can intellectual grasp he concept? If it depends on intellect, then should someone with a 190 IQ have more rights than someone with a 70IQ? Clearly the person with the 190 IQ can "intellectually grasp" pain and pleasure.

 

And then this gets into the even dumber parts of your post. What does it mean to "intellectually grasp" the "concept" of deriving pleasure? That's not the same thing as feeling it. You obviously assume that you can "intellectually grasp" pain or pleasure without being able to experience them. Why should this be true? 

 

This is laughable. Feel free to declare internet victory in your reply, because I certainly won't engage with this gibberish further. But thanks for the laugh. 

[Seraphim24]

Another example of a moral dilemma that was likely more challenging for folks in ME1 was whether to kill the rachni queen, ending any potential threat of another galactic war, or to spare her, knowing another conflict could potentially happen in the future. Unfortunately, BioWare ended up undermining this great example of a moral dilemma, but that struggle of trying to decide what is the better choice certainly illuminates what this thread is about.

 

Rachni Queen should of been saved.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Rannoch scenario was very tragic. Shepard was stuck in a position with insufficient information not understanding what the Geth were. This especially affected the players who did not play ME2, or who had played ME2 and never had detailed conversations with Legion.

 

But the Quarians knew what the Geth were, especially Admiral Xen who was in the war room with you when Legion displayed the Reaper code. If Xen had dropped a line like "Shepard, if it does that, they aren't Geth anymore. It would be like someone taking out your brain and replacing it with a different one."

 

Legion or EDI would have had to reply: "The Admiral is correct. Replacing the operating system of the Geth would fundamentally change what they are."

 

Those statements, however, would have had a major impact on how the player resolved the situation in the end. Given the fact that in the end, the player has insufficient data, the player has a moral dilemma and must make their choice with insufficient data. If they had only played ME3, the best place to start, none had met Tali, they had only seen that the Quarians were a bunch of ass hats, and that the Geth were victims, thus with no peace possible,,it was not surprising that more sided with the Geth than with the Quarians.

 

Regarding the Rachni Queen - I save her.... but i always made sure Wrex was present.

[In Exile]

The Rannoch scenario was very tragic. Shepard was stuck in a position with insufficient information not understanding what the Geth were. This especially affected the players who did not play ME2, or who had played ME2 and never had detailed conversations with Legion.

 

But the Quarians knew what the Geth were, especially Admiral Xen who was in the war room with you when Legion displayed the Reaper code. If Xen had dropped a line like "Shepard, if it does that, they aren't Geth anymore. It would be like someone taking out your brain and replacing it with a different one."

 

Legion or EDI would have had to reply: "The Admiral is correct. Replacing the operating system of the Geth would fundamentally change what they are."

 

Those statements, however, would have had a major impact on how the player resolved the situation in the end. Given the fact that in the end, the player has insufficient data, the player has a moral dilemma and must make their choice with insufficient data. If they had only played ME3, the best place to start, none had met Tali, they had only seen that the Quarians were a bunch of ass hats, and that the Geth were victims, thus with no peace possible,,it was not surprising that more sided with the Geth than with the Quarians.

 

Regarding the Rachni Queen - I save her.... but i always made sure Wrex was present.

 

I think this whole morality question misses the point. It's not about the Geth or Quarians. It's about whether the Geth can be counted on to fight the Reapers. If you genuinely think the answer is "yes", then whether or not the Geth and Quarians obliterate each other in some future genocide - and just like with the krograns and the risk of a new rebellion - this is very much a "Later" problem, because the main goal is to stop the giant space-Nazi genocide machines, and it's downright stupid to throw away resources when you don't need to do so. 

[Seraphim24]

The solution was to save Geth and the Quarians.

[KaiserShep]

I think this whole morality question misses the point. It's not about the Geth or Quarians. It's about whether the Geth can be counted on to fight the Reapers. If you genuinely think the answer is "yes", then whether or not the Geth and Quarians obliterate each other in some future genocide - and just like with the krograns and the risk of a new rebellion - this is very much a "Later" problem, because the main goal is to stop the giant space-Nazi genocide machines, and it's downright stupid to throw away resources when you don't need to do so.

I think that this is really what it comes down to. It's the same reason I don't really care if the krogan do plan to go after the turians and salarians after the war. Shepard puts it plainly when it comes down to the consequences: will be nothing compared to if the reapers win.

[Seraphim24]

And...

 

The correct ending was destroy, albeit tragic for the geth and such.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I think this whole morality question misses the point. It's not about the Geth or Quarians. It's about whether the Geth can be counted on to fight the Reapers. If you genuinely think the answer is "yes", then whether or not the Geth and Quarians obliterate each other in some future genocide - and just like with the krograns and the risk of a new rebellion - this is very much a "Later" problem, because the main goal is to stop the giant space-Nazi genocide machines, and it's downright stupid to throw away resources when you don't need to do so. 

 

Of course the goal was to stop the genocidal giant space machines. But you're going by "those who had the 'I win' red-blue" choices. Not everyone did. You had to have played ME2 a certain way to get those. And remember "Mass Effect 3 was the best place to start." So the problem was that a good portion of the people playing never met Tali or Legion.

 

So here was the dilemma:

 

1) You knew you could count on the Quarians.

2) The Geth were the wild card. They'd been fighting you ever since ME1. They'd joined the Reapers twice. Would uploading the reaper code make them free of the reapers or controlled by the reapers? Did you trust "not Legion?"

 

3) But BioWare gave us loyal players the red-blue "I win" choices that cure all of the galaxy's woes. The Shepard's silver tongue yells at the Quarians and convinces them to stop the attack, allowing Legion (if you did everything right) to finish uploading the code and make peace between the Quarians and the new race of Artificial Intelligent Mechs who apparently were smart enough to see that it was in their interests to fight against the reapers.

 

*********

 

A similar thing happens with the genophage. There is no consequence with Shepard's silver tongue if Wreav is in charge. You get to fake the cure and get the Salarian Fleet as well. You only get the feelz in the Extended Cut when you see the dwindling Krogan population. If you cure it, you see Krogan, and more Krogan, and more Krogan..... unless you choose Synthesis, then you see Krogan civilization actually evolve.

 

The thing is that it really doesn't matter if you cure it or not. You have less than one galactic standard year to build the Crucible and win this before everything collapses. You only need the Krogan to get the Turian fleet. You just need to convince the Krogan long enough to get this done. 

[Seraphim24]

Of course the goal was to stop the genocidal giant space machines. But you're going by "those who had the 'I win' red-blue" choices. Not everyone did. You had to have played ME2 a certain way to get those. And remember "Mass Effect 3 was the best place to start." So the problem was that a good portion of the people playing never met Tali or Legion.

 

So here was the dilemma:

 

1) You knew you could count on the Quarians.

2) The Geth were the wild card. They'd been fighting you ever since ME1. They'd joined the Reapers twice. Would uploading the reaper code make them free of the reapers or controlled by the reapers? Did you trust "not Legion?"

 

3) But BioWare gave us loyal players the red-blue "I win" choices that cure all of the galaxy's woes. The Shepard's silver tongue yells at the Quarians and convinces them to stop the attack, allowing Legion (if you did everything right) to finish uploading the code and make peace between the Quarians and the new race of Artificial Intelligent Mechs who apparently were smart enough to see that it was in their interests to fight against the reapers.

 

*********

 

A similar thing happens with the genophage. There is no consequence with Shepard's silver tongue if Wreav is in charge. You get to fake the cure and get the Salarian Fleet as well. You only get the feelz in the Extended Cut when you see the dwindling Krogan population. If you cure it, you see Krogan, and more Krogan, and more Krogan..... unless you choose Synthesis, then you see Krogan civilization actually evolve.

 

The thing is that it really doesn't matter if you cure it or not. You have less than one galactic standard year to build the Crucible and win this before everything collapses. You only need the Krogan to get the Turian fleet. You just need to convince the Krogan long enough to get this done. 

 

Even not playing ME1, peace with both is still the best.

 

Saying "They'd joined the Reapers" is kind of blurring the things here... they sought to avoid destruction by collaborating in the only apparent way to save themselves, it was necessity.

[Vespervin]

When I first got into the ME series the first game I played was ME3. I really liked the idea of the geth but I always chose the quarians - Tali only played a small part in this decision (couldn't romance with ME3 alone). The first time it took me about 30 minutes to choose. It was the hardest decision in the game for me.

 

When I learned that you could save the geth and the quarians, I immediately sought out ME1 and ME2. I wanted to save the geth and the quarians because I'm fascinated with both species. I also wanted to play the whole trilogy. ME is amazing!

 

The worst part of loving the geth is ME3's ending. I believe that the red ending Destroy is the best choice out of three (my opinion) but I hated how it destroyed all synthetics, most notably the geth. It's the only one that shows Shepard breath at the end but it's also the only one that destroys the geth. Because of this I choose the blue ending Control, because at least it's not the green ending Synthesis.

 

Edit: I hope MEA has decisions like the Rannoch one.

Modifié par Vespervin, 05 mars 2016 - 10:47 .

[Revan Reborn]

When I first got into the ME series the first game I played was ME3. I really liked the idea of the geth but I always chose the quarians - Tali only played a small part in this decision (couldn't romance with ME3 alone). The first time it took me about 30 minutes to choose. It was the hardest decision in the game for me.

 

When I learned that you could save the geth and the quarians, I immediately sought out ME1 and ME2. I wanted to save the geth and the quarians because I'm fascinated with both species. I also wanted to play the whole trilogy. ME is amazing!

 

The worst part of loving the geth is ME3's ending. I believe that the red ending Destroy is the best choice out of three (my opinion) but I hated how it destroyed all synthetics, most notably the geth. It's the only one that shows Shepard breath at the end but it's also the only one that destroys the geth. Because of this I choose the blue ending Control, because at least it's not the green ending Synthesis.

 

Edit: I hope MEA has decisions like the Rannoch one.

I actually didn't mind the fact that the geth and EDI died in ME3. What I did mind, however, was the entire portion of the game dedicated to saving the geth and quarians on Rannoch if you chose to do so. What was the point of any of that if the geth were just going to die anyway. Of course, the cynical argument is that the geth were necessary for High EMS and then they are disposable.

 

In my opinion, every choice needed a drawback. The drawback of Destroy was losing synthetics. It's not ideal, but with every choice there is a sacrifice and I would choose Destroy over Synthesis or Control any day everyday.

[Geth Supremacy]

I actually didn't mind the fact that the geth and EDI died in ME3.

 

 

And that is why you are going to be the one dancing during the ME: A release while your girl plays  You don't deserve anything more.

 

Geth are the best part of the ME series.  Krogans are a close second though.

[Prince Enigmatic]

After all the times EDI saved Shepard, the Normandy, and its squad and crew, I couldn't let her, or the geth die in any of my play throughs.

 

The ending to me wasn't a moral dilemma. Synthesis ensured no species died. I walked straight ahead without hesitation. I'd be no different than a Reaper for picking destroy, and seeing an entire race be killed just to save all organics. And when organics eventually build AI again to serve as servants or slaves, the cycle will just continue. This is my opinion on the events in game, I'm not applying this to real life because this is fiction so please no "But in real life...".

 

I am more than happy to accept that Destroy is the more popular, and oft considered canon ending, and am fine with the disagreements to synthesis. But after everything Shepard and the galaxy had had to sacrifice up to the final battle on Earth, I personally wasn't about to sacrifice any more life. 

 

I'm also very biased towards saving EDI, after being devastated by what happened to Cortana in Halo 4.

[Seraphim24]

After all the times EDI saved Shepard, the Normandy, and its squad and crew, I couldn't let her, or the geth die in any of my play throughs.

 

The ending to me wasn't a moral dilemma. Synthesis ensured no species died. I walked straight ahead without hesitation. I'd be no different than a Reaper for picking destroy, and seeing an entire race be killed just to save all organics. And when organics eventually build AI again to serve as servants or slaves, the cycle will just continue. This is my opinion on the events in game, I'm not applying this to real life because this is fiction so please no "But in real life...".

 

I am more than happy to accept that Destroy is the more popular, and oft considered canon ending, and am fine with the disagreements to synthesis. But after everything Shepard and the galaxy had had to sacrifice up to the final battle on Earth, I personally wasn't about to sacrifice any more life. 

 

Synthesis did sacrifice life, it sacrificed everyone as they were. It's akin to mass mutation of every living thing on earth in completely unexplained ways, it's theoretically possible these aren't really changes of any kind at all, but there is zero certainty making it unreliable.

 

Destroy also ensures that many live, yes some die, but many live. That's why Destroy is optimal.

[von uber]

And that is why you are going to be the one dancing during the ME: A release while your girl plays You don't deserve anything more.

Geth are the best part of the ME series. Krogans are a close second though.

Which Geth? The ME2 Geth or post Rannoch Geth? Two completely different things, and unless we are lugging a whole load of hardware and servers with us to Andromeda the ME2 Geth are dead and gone.
We now basically have EDI''s (although come to think of it even she needed all the server space too).
Hmm.
I'm seeing a discrepancy here. What a surprise.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I actually didn't mind the fact that the geth and EDI died in ME3. What I did mind, however, was the entire portion of the game dedicated to saving the geth and quarians on Rannoch if you chose to do so. What was the point of any of that if the geth were just going to die anyway. Of course, the cynical argument is that the geth were necessary for High EMS and then they are disposable.

 

In my opinion, every choice needed a drawback. The drawback of Destroy was losing synthetics. It's not ideal, but with every choice there is a sacrifice and I would choose Destroy over Synthesis or Control any day everyday.

 

I always thought Destroy hitting the Geth was nonsensical myself. When firing the Synthesis beam, the Crucible can remake all life in the galaxy -down to the freaking grass- at the molecular level instantly and with no visible side effect, but when in Destroy mode it can't distinguish between Reaper and Geth?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I always thought Destroy hitting the Geth was nonsensical myself. When firing the Synthesis beam, the Crucible can remake all life in the galaxy -down to the freaking grass- at the molecular level instantly and with no visible side effect, but when in Destroy mode it can't distinguish between Reaper and Geth?

 

It destroys everything containing reaper tech. The Pinocchio Code was uploaded directly from the Rannoch Reaper. It wasn't reverse engineered - it was reaper software. EDI was made from the Luna VI and parts of Sovereign. 

 

That's why the Geth and EDI died in the destroy ending. 

[Iakus]

I always thought Destroy hitting the Geth was nonsensical myself. When firing the Synthesis beam, the Crucible can remake all life in the galaxy -down to the freaking grass- at the molecular level instantly and with no visible side effect, but when in Destroy mode it can't distinguish between Reaper and Geth?

THe beam is dependent on  the amount of Art in its function.  Changing every life form in the galaxy has a high amount of Art in it.  Allowing the Red beam to discriminate between Reapers and geth doesn't have enough Art to activate.