319 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

Actually no, that is not the definition of genocide.

"gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
synonyms: mass murder, mass homicide, massacre; annihilation, extermination, elimination, liquidation, eradication, decimation, butchery, bloodletting; pogrom, ethnic cleansing, holocaust."

Shepard committed genocide.

Eve if that is a small number for the overall Batarians race, it was the complete annihilation of that planets population.

Thus genocide.

Please reconsider the definition of the word "deliberate" before throwing words like genocide around.

[SNascimento]

It is certainly the best written Star Wars game. The confrontation with the Jedi Council in the ruins of Dantooine (assuming one played Light Side) remains one of my favorite scenes in gaming. Chris Avellone truly is a god with the pen, and it's such a shame he's left Obsidian. What I wouldn't give to see what he could do with Mass Effect...

it's not even the best written KoTOR. 

People are just too easily impressed by a few dialogues with a little more depth. 

And Kreia is a subtle as a punch to the face. I hope there are no characters like that in Andromeda. 

[X Equestris]

Actually no, that is not the definition of genocide.
"gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
synonyms: mass murder, mass homicide, massacre; annihilation, extermination, elimination, liquidation, eradication, decimation, butchery, bloodletting; pogrom, ethnic cleansing, holocaust."
Shepard committed genocide.
Eve if that is a small number for the overall Batarians race, it was the complete annihilation of that planets population.
Thus genocide.

You're overlooking the second word in that definition: deliberate. Shepard never intended for them all to die. Further, the Batarians weren't outright targeted because of what they were, one of the major factors on whether something was genocide or not. I bet Shepard would've made them same decision if it was any other species' system.

[Nashiktal]

Please reconsider the definition of the word "deliberate" before throwing words like genocide around.

Shepard did deliberately kill them. He had no other choice, but he still did it. He activated the thrusters. He was aware of the plan to destroy the relay.

He committed genocide.

[dreamgazer]

Shepard did deliberately kill them. He had no other choice, but he still did it. He activated the thrusters. He was aware of the plan to destroy the relay.

He committed genocide.

 

Once again, please reconsider the definition of the word "deliberate" before throwing words like genocide around. 

[X Equestris]

Shepard did deliberately kill them. He had no other choice, but he still did it. He activated the thrusters. He was aware of the plan to destroy the relay.
He committed genocide.

Genocide requires the group to be intentionally targeted for what they are. The Bahak incident doesn't meet that criteria.

[TurianSpectre]

 

I really don't like this woman what a b*tch always snooping around in my head. 

Dont want to know what goes on in your head

[CoffeeElemental]

Genocide is the systematic destruction of an entire race. Shepard caused the deaths of less than 0.1% of the total galactic batarian population, as collateral damage. They weren't even the main target.

Choosing to kill rachni queen is technically genocide. And sabotaging genophage cure is something similar. So the precedent exists.

 

In my opinion instead of paragon and renegade we should have a choice of being pro-milky way or pro-andromeda. For example you land on the planet and learn that krogans got into conflict with natives over some resources, escalating to full blown violence. You can chose to help krogan or natives, with lasting pros and cons.

[Nashiktal]

Genocide requires the group to be intentionally targeted for what they are. The Bahak incident doesn't meet that criteria.

Shepard knew the Batarians would die if he destroyed the relay.

But fine; then what about mindful massacre? Informed Annihilation of innocent men, women, and children? (Plus the rest of the Batarians there.) Preinformed but regretful butchery?


Shepard caused an extinction event so massive that planet is dead. And he was aware of this when he activated the project.

[dreamgazer]

Shepard knew the Batarians would die if he destroyed the relay.

But fine; then what about mindful massacre? Informed Annihilation of innocent men, women, and children? (Plus the rest of the Batarians there.) Preinformed but regretful butchery?


Shepard caused an extinction event so massive that planet is dead. And he was aware of this when he activated the project.

Where does the concept of collateral damage come into play with your rationale?

[X Equestris]

Shepard knew the Batarians would die if he destroyed the relay.
But fine; then what about mindful massacre? Informed Annihilation of innocent men, women, and children? (Plus the rest of the Batarians there.) Preinformed but regretful butchery?
Shepard caused an extinction event so massive that planet is dead. And he was aware of this when he activated the project.

And Shepard would likely have behaved the same way no matter the inhabitants of the system. Knowing they will die is a side effect for Shepard, not the main purpose of destroying the Alpha Relay.

Considering an extinction event of greater size was about to come through the relay... Shepard was aware of that, too.

[Nashiktal]

And Shepard would likely have behaved the same way no matter the inhabitants of the system. Knowing they will die is a side effect for Shepard, not the main purpose of destroying the Alpha Relay.

Considering an extinction event of greater size was about to come through the relay... Shepard was aware of that, too.

True, but this discussion was started earlier when someone denied we would be allowed to commit such atrocities, when we already have.

[X Equestris]

True, but this discussion was started earlier when someone denied we would be allowed to commit such atrocities, when we already have.

Considering the title of this thread, I imagine they wanted such atrocities for their own sake, not these sort of "sacrificed for the greater good" type actions we are allowed to take in the trilogy.

[dreamgazer]

Being downright evil and committing "genocide" would be searching the entire galaxy for batarians after the events of Arrival and shooting them all in the head to finish the job.

[rashie]

I wouldn't label the Alpha Relay as a genocide, shepard didn't do that because there were batarians in the system,  but to prevent the reapers from accessing the relay network and hitting the rest of the galaxy more or less instantly.

 

It was a choice between dead batarians and an instant reaper invasion, or dead batarians and a delayed reaper invasion.

[Cyonan]

Those people are lunatics.

I'd rather not play a lunatic. I know what I'm going to do moment-to-moment. If you don't, I'm legitimately afraid of you.

(let's be honest - in real life I'm afraid of everyone)

 

but it's most people that are like that at some point in their life. Or sometimes we do something we knew we were going to do, but didn't think it was something we would be able to go through with.

 

We've already been down this discussion before and you've admitted you don't understand and don't care to understand Human psychology. I'm not sure why after that I should believe your word on who is or isn't a lunatic, because you clearly don't know what your talking about by your own admission.

 

What about when they're not desperate?

And shouldn't the player be the one to decide when the character is desperate? Even if the character were to act in a way that he couldn't have predicted in advance, the player should still know what's going to happen because the player is the one pressing the buttons. The player should have better knowledge about the character than the character has about himself.

 

It's up to you to come up with the reason as to why. I've already noted there is enough ambiguity for you to work with here.

 

Desperation was just one possible answer. It's not my job to list all of them for you.

 

You already have to headcanon 100% of this scenario in KotoR, so doing the same in Mass Effect shouldn't be a stretch if KotoR isn't.

 

That's not helpful.

 

No, it's not particularly helpful when either side does it =P

[themikefest]

Shepard did deliberately kill them. He had no other choice, but he still did it. He activated the thrusters. He was aware of the plan to destroy the relay.

He committed genocide.

If that's the case, would that also apply to Hackett and his team, if the dlc isn't completed?

[BountyhunterGER]

 

I really don't like this woman what a b*tch always snooping around in my head. 

And I thought that I would never have to see this character again.. thanks bsn. She might have been well written but that doesn't change the fact that I wanted to throw her out the airlock since I first had the "pleasure" to meet her.

[The Elder King]

I have complete control over the character as soon as I finish character creation. Otherwise the gameplay is absurd.

I don't ignore the story setup. I just refuse to draw the expected conclusions based on it. If BioWare wants to ensure that my character has a certain objective or a certain world view, they need to make that explicit. And they need to make that explicit before I buy the game.

They have made clear enough already what our primary objective will be, and they didn't even talk that much about the game, yet. i think you have, and you'll definitely have more, enough info to determine that our character has determinate goal or goals, which won't fit with your example of being a space pirate.

That sort of character design would havewould have totally worked in KotOR.

Headcanon FTW.
If we were worried about zots we'd stop wasting them on non-interactive cinematics.

That's assuming Bioware isn't itneresting non-interactive cinematics, or stuff you don't like. Some members of the DA team stated already that they're going back to DAO/DA2 in certain features, like the non cinematic dialogues, which where things you enjoyed.

MEA might seem more sandbox compared to the previous ME games, but I think it'd be better if you keep in mind that it might worse, for your type of preference, compared to DAI.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In that context then, we were explicitly told that Shepard was, in fact, duty bound - He is an Alliance Soldier from the outset with the lowly rank of Commander only. In ME2, he goes rogue, but in ME3, he's reinstated at the same rank. He still fully answers to both Hackett and Anderson. Nothing in Hackett's reinstatement email tells Shepard that he does not still answer to Hackett. The boundaries of his duties are clearly set out there and re-iterated several times in his subsequent conversations with Hackett. If you somehow don't think this was explicit enough - that's a problem originating within you... not the writing of the series. Simply put - Some individuals are simply more easily surprised than others... what I find "explicit," you obviously do not.

They told us he was a soldier, not that he was a loyal soldier. They also didn't establish that his loyalty was unwavering and couldn't change.

Anderson trusted him, but we didn't know if his trust was misplaced.

[KotorEffect3]

I don't want "evil" choices just for the sake of being "evil".  I want the choices to be more nuanced than that.  I want the choices to force me to deal with consequences both good and bad where there isn't a clear answer.  This whole I want to be "evil" stuff is little kid stuff.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but it's most people that are like that at some point in their life. Or sometimes we do something we knew we were going to do, but didn't think it was something we would be able to go through with.

We've already been down this discussion before and you've admitted you don't understand and don't care to understand Human psychology. I'm not sure why after that I should believe your word on who is or isn't a lunatic, because you clearly don't know what your talking about by your own admission.

I'm simply declaring them to be lunatics. I do not trust them.

It's up to you to come up with the reason as to why. I've already noted there is enough ambiguity for you to work with here.

But the reason needs to come before the event, not after. Otherwise we won't be able to experience the consequences from the proper mental state. The rest of the scene would effectively be spoiled for us before we're ready to consume it.

Desperation was just one possible answer. It's not my job to list all of them for you.

You already have to headcanon 100% of this scenario in KotoR, so doing the same in Mass Effect shouldn't be a stretch if KotoR isn't.

KotOR lets me see what my character is going to say before he says say it, and does not have my character do substantive things in non-interactive scenes.

[In Exile]

I once heard it described that KOTOR is a reconstruction of Star Wars tropes while KOTOR 2 is a deconstruction of Star Wars tropes.

I don't think it's fair to call KotOR a reconstruction. Among other reasons, Star Wars wasn't deconstructed at the time by any works AFAIK. Bioware was just very visually, tonally and thematically consistent with the OT. It's probably the closest spiritual successor of the OT until we TFA last year. I think you need someone to deconstruct the work before you can reconstruct it. I just don't see what criticism KOTOR reports to - it just retreads.

[In Exile]

I listened to an interview of Chris Avellone where he described the thought process that went into writing the game.

KoTOR II's story is essentially the writing team's (though mainly Avellone's) reaction to the prequels and other incongruities of the universe. It overcorrected on a narrative that had strayed too far into the serial pulp while loosing the depth–and there was depth–of the original. It was preachy, but that was the result of a Star Wars nerd's insistence that the universe wasn't just pulp.

That's a exactly what makes it a deconstruction. It's a critical response. Even the claim the setting had depth is something inherent in the deconstruction. A Song of Ice and Fire is a deconstruction of post-Tolkien fantasy - but it's absolutely coming from a place that sees fantasy as having depth (just listen to a few GRRM interviews).

What makes it preachy to me though isn't that it has a clear literary view - it's that you get a bunch of hamfisted and forced moments with Kreia where the writers basically advance poorly thought out Phil 101 ideas (the Kreia beggar scene being the worst offender of the lot).

PST has the long, spiraling dialogue and the metaphysics, but I found that it did a far better job of not constructing false dilemmas to prove moral points.

[UpUpAway]

They told us he was a soldier, not that he was a loyal soldier. They also didn't establish that his loyalty was unwavering and couldn't change.

Anderson trusted him, but we didn't know if his trust was misplaced.

 

Being "duty bound" and being "loyal" are two different things.  Shepard is duty bound... in ME2, the player is clearly informed ahead of time that he is not completely loyal.  As for Arrival, that is Bioware clearly establishing that Shepard will again be duty bound to Hackett and the Alliance in ME3.  The player is being explicitly told that they are not being given the agency to "decide" whether or not Shepard returns to the Alliance in ME3 since Hackett "orders" him to be "ready to take the hit."

 

At the end - anything but a "destroy" decision requires a Shepard who is, in fact, not completely loyal.  Hackett's orders are clear "Destroy the reapers" - to do anything else is to disobey orders.  If you, the player, decides that Shepard is not a loyal soldier and you select the action of either controlling or synthesizing or refusing to act, you, the player, are acknowledging that your decision is "important" enough to your Shepard to warrant him/her commtting treason to accomplish it.  If you, the player, don't believe strongly enough in those decisions (for whatever reason), your "cop out" position is still to obey orders and choose "destroy."  It is no accident that Bioware wrote the endings such that Destroy is available with the lowest EMS and that Destroy/Live requires the highest EMS... because in ME3, Shepard is always clearly "duty bound" and there is no reason why you wouldn't explicitly know this before buying the game.