inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 14:05:12 GMT
But after the Rannoch arc they do change their view on that. The Geth Prime you speak to at the FOB says that the Reapers came to the Geth with the same offer and that they were refused. So, at that point, the Geth are very much willing to die to see the Reaper threat removed. And seeing as how Refuse results in the Geth being wiped out like all the other species of the that cycle then it's obvious they didn't have a change of heart from that point moving forward. Until they change their minds again. Keep in mind the geth also initially refused to work with Nazara, before deciding submission might in fact be preferable to extinction. And Refuse is nothing but Bioware trolling their detractors before flipping the table. Doesn't change the fact that the Geth were willing to die to see the Reapers stopped at that point in the narrative, which wouldn't make Destroy a betrayal/genocide of synthetics as those very synthetics were willing to put their lives on the line to make it possible for the Red ending to happen.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 6, 2022 14:35:13 GMT
Until they change their minds again. Keep in mind the geth also initially refused to work with Nazara, before deciding submission might in fact be preferable to extinction. And Refuse is nothing but Bioware trolling their detractors before flipping the table. Doesn't change the fact that the Geth were willing to die to see the Reapers stopped at that point in the narrative, which wouldn't make Destroy a betrayal/genocide of synthetics as those very synthetics were willing to put their lives on the line to make it possible for the Red ending to happen. Quick! Kill the geth before they can change their minds again! At any rate, even if we assume that the geth are 100% for destroying the Reapers even if it means their own death, stabbing them in the back like that is a serious d*ck move. It's "we had to destroy the village to save it"
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 6, 2022 14:41:40 GMT
Indeed, I agree with all of this. But the point was if we HAD to use the Literal Giant Space Wand. If we wanted an ending that made sense, we'd have to completely remake ME3 from the ground up. And probably a big chunk of ME2 since that game was one huge side quest rather than, you know TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO STOP THE REAPERS! So by the tie of the third game (the best place to start!) so much time had been wasted and the Reapers built up to such an absurd power level that space magic and Reaper stupidity were the only answer left. If there's to be any remaking going to happen, I would start with ME1. The other way is to have ME2 being the first game. Here's what I posted how that could happen. I have posted a number of times remaking ME3 since the current ME3 was made for people who never played ME1/2. Remake, or rather make ME3 for the people who played the first two game first. I am open to reworking some of ME1 as well. It's just ME2 is where things really started going off the tracks. [/quote] Honestly, is that much more far-fetched than what Citadel gave us?
|
|
inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 14:46:46 GMT
Doesn't change the fact that the Geth were willing to die to see the Reapers stopped at that point in the narrative, which wouldn't make Destroy a betrayal/genocide of synthetics as those very synthetics were willing to put their lives on the line to make it possible for the Red ending to happen. Quick! Kill the geth before they can change their minds again! At any rate, even if we assume that the geth are 100% for destroying the Reapers even if it means their own death, stabbing them in the back like that is a serious d*ck move. It's "we had to destroy the village to save it" I don't see it as stabbing them in the back though. Destroy kills synthetics true, but it's more collateral damage than an intentional act of betrayal. It's not like Shepard gets to the Crucible and then goes: "Now's my chance to screw over those pesky overgrown toasters!" while shooting the tube. This is more akin to dropping a bomb on an enemy HQ that's guaranteed to wipe out their leadership but it will unfortunately wipe out your own soldiers fighting around the fortification. That's not d*cking them over, that's weighing the odds at stopping an overwhelming enemy dead in it's tracks for the lives of those very people fighting to stop said enemy.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:01:43 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,270
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Apr 6, 2022 14:55:52 GMT
Until they change their minds again. Keep in mind the geth also initially refused to work with Nazara, before deciding submission might in fact be preferable to extinction. And Refuse is nothing but Bioware trolling their detractors before flipping the table. Doesn't change the fact that the Geth were willing to die to see the Reapers stopped at that point in the narrative, which wouldn't make Destroy a betrayal/genocide of synthetics as those very synthetics were willing to put their lives on the line to make it possible for the Red ending to happen. Even EDI says it views the Reapers as "repulsive". And no war has been won without sacrificing soldiers on the battlefield, or without doing some.... questionable things.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:22:23 GMT
24,254
themikefest
14,809
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Apr 6, 2022 15:18:31 GMT
the geth are machines. the former hologram turned platform is a thing. Rebuild them if you want. But they won't be the same as before. Yeah? So what. Outside of legion, and if you want to count the geth vi, fine, no other geth the player interacts with. No big loss rebuilding the geth. But, but...the edibot. Don't have the thing return in ME4. After spending time mourning the loss of his sister and father, Joker will come to the realization having feelings for a robot was silly. During the game, he ends up romancing a human female. Again. No big loss.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 6, 2022 15:19:42 GMT
Quick! Kill the geth before they can change their minds again! At any rate, even if we assume that the geth are 100% for destroying the Reapers even if it means their own death, stabbing them in the back like that is a serious d*ck move. It's "we had to destroy the village to save it" I don't see it as stabbing them in the back though. Destroy kills synthetics true, but it's more collateral damage than an intentional act of betrayal. It's not like Shepard gets to the Crucible and then goes: "Now's my chance to screw over those pesky overgrown toasters!" while shooting the tube. This is more akin to dropping a bomb on an enemy HQ that's guaranteed to wipe out their leadership but it will unfortunately wipe out your own soldiers fighting around the fortification. That's not d*cking them over, that's weighing the odds at stopping an overwhelming enemy dead in it's tracks for the lives of those very people fighting to stop said enemy. Oh, it's FAR more than that. It's killing those soldier, their families, everyone of their race, whichever side of the war they fought on, or even if they fought in that war, whether you know they EXIST or not. And going by Starbrat's description, it SHOULD have done a number on all trained biotics as well as anyone with significant cybernetic implants too.
|
|
inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 15:35:52 GMT
I don't see it as stabbing them in the back though. Destroy kills synthetics true, but it's more collateral damage than an intentional act of betrayal. It's not like Shepard gets to the Crucible and then goes: "Now's my chance to screw over those pesky overgrown toasters!" while shooting the tube. This is more akin to dropping a bomb on an enemy HQ that's guaranteed to wipe out their leadership but it will unfortunately wipe out your own soldiers fighting around the fortification. That's not d*cking them over, that's weighing the odds at stopping an overwhelming enemy dead in it's tracks for the lives of those very people fighting to stop said enemy. Oh, it's FAR more than that. It's killing those soldier, their families, everyone of their race, whichever side of the war they fought on, or even if they fought in that war, whether you know they EXIST or not. And going by Starbrat's description, it SHOULD have done a number on all trained biotics as well as anyone with significant cybernetic implants too. The stakes are bigger but so is the scope of everything else. This is the fate of an entire galaxy we are fighting over after all. Protecting non-combatants is vital but the scale of this war, and the Reapers' intentions, makes it clear that no such distinction can be made. You are either against the invading mecha-squids or you will be killed when they win. There is no middle ground, no negotiating, and no means of staying out of the conflict. Loosing here means that every single person of every single race will die. All things being equal which is the lesser of the two evils? The loss of a few species? Or the loss of literally everyone; including those that will be targeted by the Red beam? Even if Destroy somehow would only target humans and Asari I would still make the same argument. The loss of a few to protect the many.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 6, 2022 15:41:09 GMT
Oh, it's FAR more than that. It's killing those soldier, their families, everyone of their race, whichever side of the war they fought on, or even if they fought in that war, whether you know they EXIST or not. And going by Starbrat's description, it SHOULD have done a number on all trained biotics as well as anyone with significant cybernetic implants too. The stakes are bigger but so is the scope of everything else. This is the fate of an entire galaxy we are fighting over after all. Protecting non-combatants is vital but the scale of this war, and the Reapers' intentions, makes it clear that no such distinction can be made. You are either against the invading mecha-squids or you will be killed when they win. There is no middle ground, no negotiating, and no means of staying out of the conflict. Loosing here means that every single person of every single race will die. All things being equal which is the lesser of the two evils? The loss of a few species? Or the loss of literally everyone; including those that will be targeted by the Red beam? Even if Destroy somehow would only target humans and Asari I would still make the same argument. The loss of a few to protect the many. And if I wanted depressing sh*t like that I'd read the newspaper and have saved myself the money from buying the games. Especially after they spent the trilogy crowing "there's always another way" and "your choices matter" I'm too old for railroaded edgelord "choices"
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Apr 6, 2022 17:06:42 GMT
Oh, it's FAR more than that. It's killing those soldier, their families, everyone of their race, whichever side of the war they fought on, or even if they fought in that war, whether you know they EXIST or not. And going by Starbrat's description, it SHOULD have done a number on all trained biotics as well as anyone with significant cybernetic implants too. The stakes are bigger but so is the scope of everything else. This is the fate of an entire galaxy we are fighting over after all. Protecting non-combatants is vital but the scale of this war, and the Reapers' intentions, makes it clear that no such distinction can be made. You are either against the invading mecha-squids or you will be killed when they win. There is no middle ground, no negotiating, and no means of staying out of the conflict. Loosing here means that every single person of every single race will die. All things being equal which is the lesser of the two evils? The loss of a few species? Or the loss of literally everyone; including those that will be targeted by the Red beam? Even if Destroy somehow would only target humans and Asari I would still make the same argument. The loss of a few to protect the many. Except that there were other choices, so it is among the greater of evils since it could be avoided but you still do it anyway.
|
|
inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 17:13:15 GMT
The stakes are bigger but so is the scope of everything else. This is the fate of an entire galaxy we are fighting over after all. Protecting non-combatants is vital but the scale of this war, and the Reapers' intentions, makes it clear that no such distinction can be made. You are either against the invading mecha-squids or you will be killed when they win. There is no middle ground, no negotiating, and no means of staying out of the conflict. Loosing here means that every single person of every single race will die. All things being equal which is the lesser of the two evils? The loss of a few species? Or the loss of literally everyone; including those that will be targeted by the Red beam? Even if Destroy somehow would only target humans and Asari I would still make the same argument. The loss of a few to protect the many. And if I wanted depressing sh*t like that I'd read the newspaper and have saved myself the money from buying the games. Especially after they spent the trilogy crowing "there's always another way" and "your choices matter" I'm too old for railroaded edgelord "choices" Oh believe me, I detest the nature of the endings too and wish that the conclusion of the trilogy would have seen us assembling a fleet (following our choices and decisions) and allowing us to save the day and be Big Damn Heroes. Unfortunately the way Casey and Co wanted to write this as their own (poor) version of The End of Evangelion. Given what the narrative gives us to work with, and seeing as how Destroying the Reapers was the stated goal since game 1, I see the Red ending as the best option out of a selection of crappy endings. It would have been nice to have Refuse actually work, based on if we could assemble a large enough fleet plus war assets but alas that is not the case. BioWare was adament on that being the F**K YOU ending for those players that didn't want to go along with their ABC conclusion to the trilogy.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:22:23 GMT
24,254
themikefest
14,809
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Apr 6, 2022 17:17:07 GMT
Except that there were other choices, so it is among the greater of evils since it could be avoided but you still do it anyway. What other choices? The blue and green? Both have the reapers remain. That's no-go. What you want is for everyone to get peace between the geth and quarians so that they and everyone else can sing and dance after choosing the green. Since choices are at the center of the trilogy, it's too bad Bioware didn't give one last choice for the player.
|
|
inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 17:18:20 GMT
The stakes are bigger but so is the scope of everything else. This is the fate of an entire galaxy we are fighting over after all. Protecting non-combatants is vital but the scale of this war, and the Reapers' intentions, makes it clear that no such distinction can be made. You are either against the invading mecha-squids or you will be killed when they win. There is no middle ground, no negotiating, and no means of staying out of the conflict. Loosing here means that every single person of every single race will die. All things being equal which is the lesser of the two evils? The loss of a few species? Or the loss of literally everyone; including those that will be targeted by the Red beam? Even if Destroy somehow would only target humans and Asari I would still make the same argument. The loss of a few to protect the many. Except that there were other choices, so it is among the greater of evils since it could be avoided but you still do it anyway. One is to have the Reapers enacting martial law on the galaxy for all of eternity, effectively putting a stop to all advancement and progress that the Shepardlyst didn't want. Plus it's only a matter of time, no matter how Paragon your avatar might have been, before the Reapers start killing again. After all, even the Catalyst said that the Reapers were like fire; and all fire can do is burn and destroy. And the other choice is to turn all life in the galaxy into high-functioning Reaper husks; which is a violation even greater than sudden extinction would be. Especially if you happen to be one of those humans fused to a batarian's arm as you suddenly gain awareness of what's happened to you.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:01:43 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,270
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Apr 6, 2022 17:22:01 GMT
And if I wanted depressing sh*t like that I'd read the newspaper and have saved myself the money from buying the games. Especially after they spent the trilogy crowing "there's always another way" and "your choices matter" I'm too old for railroaded edgelord "choices" Oh believe me, I detest the nature of the endings too and wish that the conclusion of the trilogy would have seen us assembling a fleet (following our choices and decisions) and allowing us to save the day and be Big Damn Heroes. Unfortunately the way Casey and Co wanted to write this as their own (poor) version of The End of Evangelion. Given what the narrative gives us to work with, and seeing as how Destroying the Reapers was the stated goal since game 1, I see the Red ending as the best option out of a selection of crappy endings. It would have been nice to have Refuse actually work, based on if we could assemble a large enough fleet plus war assets but alas that is not the case. BioWare was adament on that being the F**K YOU ending for those players that didn't want to go along with their ABC conclusion to the trilogy. If you play MET on PC, there's always the ME3 ending mod that removes Starkid's BS...
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Apr 6, 2022 17:30:42 GMT
Except that there were other choices, so it is among the greater of evils since it could be avoided but you still do it anyway. One is to have the Reapers enacting martial law on the galaxy for all of eternity, effectively putting a stop to all advancement and progress that the Shepardlyst didn't want. Plus it's only a matter of time, no matter how Paragon your avatar might have been, before the Reapers start killing again. After all, even the Catalyst said that the Reapers were like fire; and all fire can do is burn and destroy. And the other choice is to turn all life in the galaxy into high-functioning Reaper husks; which is a violation even greater than sudden extinction would be. Especially if you happen to be one of those humans fused to a batarian's arm as you suddenly gain awareness of what's happened to you. First, Fire can do far more than that. We’re literally talking to each other through things that are made with the help of fire as a simple example. Fire is a big reason why humanity is still around. Second, that’s just one possibility and one that is not supported anywhere in the epilogue for that ending. This is also completely inaccurate. Sounds like something the anti-vaxxers would argue “Death of others is better than me getting a shot.” Also we never get to see what the husks are like after the beam. For all we know they are just like VIs. They won’t suddenly become the person they were before being harvested.
|
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Apr 23, 2024 17:30:54 GMT
30,246
Hanako Ikezawa
22,353
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Apr 6, 2022 17:32:12 GMT
And if I wanted depressing sh*t like that I'd read the newspaper and have saved myself the money from buying the games. Especially after they spent the trilogy crowing "there's always another way" and "your choices matter" I'm too old for railroaded edgelord "choices" Oh believe me, I detest the nature of the endings too and wish that the conclusion of the trilogy would have seen us assembling a fleet (following our choices and decisions) and allowing us to save the day and be Big Damn Heroes. Unfortunately the way Casey and Co wanted to write this as their own (poor) version of The End of Evangelion. Given what the narrative gives us to work with, and seeing as how Destroying the Reapers was the stated goal since game 1, I see the Red ending as the best option out of a selection of crappy endings. It would have been nice to have Refuse actually work, based on if we could assemble a large enough fleet plus war assets but alas that is not the case. BioWare was adament on that being the F**K YOU ending for those players that didn't want to go along with their ABC conclusion to the trilogy. Too bad the Legendary Edition didn’t go the way Evangelion did with the Rebuild movies. Instead, they just made ME a little worse but hid it with a shiny coat of paint.
|
|
inherit
1040
0
3,228
Vortex13
2,202
Aug 17, 2016 14:31:53 GMT
August 2016
vortex13
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Vortex13 on Apr 6, 2022 17:49:13 GMT
One is to have the Reapers enacting martial law on the galaxy for all of eternity, effectively putting a stop to all advancement and progress that the Shepardlyst didn't want. Plus it's only a matter of time, no matter how Paragon your avatar might have been, before the Reapers start killing again. After all, even the Catalyst said that the Reapers were like fire; and all fire can do is burn and destroy. And the other choice is to turn all life in the galaxy into high-functioning Reaper husks; which is a violation even greater than sudden extinction would be. Especially if you happen to be one of those humans fused to a batarian's arm as you suddenly gain awareness of what's happened to you. First, Fire can do far more than that. We’re literally talking to each other through things that are made with the help of fire as a simple example. Fire is a big reason why humanity is still around. Second, that’s just one possibility and one that is not supported anywhere in the epilogue for that ending. This is also completely inaccurate. Sounds like something the anti-vaxxers would argue “Death of others is better than me getting a shot.” Also we never get to see what the husks are like after the beam. For all we know they are just like VIs. They won’t suddenly become the person they were before being harvested. Starchild used the fire example to excuse the Reapers from responsibility of causing untold death and misery with the whole "Is fire at war?" shtik. So fine, if the Reapers are just fire, just a force of nature that destroys then we obviously can't trust them to police the galaxy. The writing tries to have it both ways but it can't be both. Either the Reapers are completely at fault for the cycles and the harvests, in which case eternal psychos like Harbinger need to be removed from the face of the universe as quickly as possible. Or the Reapers are just a force that can only do one thing, in which case why would we ever entrust them with the safe-keeping of the galaxy? And synthesis is a space magic beam that suddenly can convert the entire galaxy into cyborgs instantly without mass implant rejection. And it also makes it so suddenly everyone is ready to hold hands and sign kumbya with the genocidal monsters from dark space that up until five seconds ago were murdering them. How much of this 'upgrade' involves mind altering the peoples of the galaxy to just "like love peace man". Given the choice between dying or having your mind forcibly changed to accept the Reapers as friends is something that people throughout the trilogy have encountered and chosen death to being indoctrinated; Saren & Illusive Man being two prime examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
12213
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2022 17:54:59 GMT
Because that's exactly what Destroy is. Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The group in this case being synthetic life, which the games establish are more than just machines. So saying they are just machines is a bigoted viewpoint, the same one used to justify many atrocities in human history since "Well, Group X are subhuman". Then of course there are cases where it would still wipe out organic races, since in the lore there are the Virtual Aliens who were organics who uploaded themselves into machines to survive their planet dying. Heck, even if it just targeted the Reapers it still falls under the UN definition of genocide.
So I looked up the definition on Wikipedia and using it on a fictional universe comes with some problems. The definition you're talking about here is, naturally, about all of mankind. So there is no need to further appoint the ethnic, national etc groups since they're are logically all human and therefore equal. Just transcribing this definition to the Geth or maybe even organic alien life in general seems not that easily done, atleast for me.
Second, for the definition you are refering to the actual intent is also central. To put it short: Shep doesn't go for the destroy path with the malicious intent to destroy all non-organics. He does it to save the galaxy from the Reaper threat so if you want to put a definition on all of this, collateral damage is a lot closer to the truth. And even with all the adulation (I hope thats a real word lol) going on towards the Geth in ME3 it's probably not that smart to want them around after the Reaper war in the first place.
@hullluliini
You're talking about an important aspect here imo and something Bioware done wrong over and over again in the last years with the exception of the MET. Though our opinions seem to differ a bit.
For whatever reason they came up with a new character cast for most the sequels (all the Dragon Age games, Andromeda). And by this, they somewhat knowlingly cut short what makes BW games so special. All of them have fun "blockbuster" stories which are not too original by themselves with the staggering amount of fridge logic which naturally comes with such stories. With the exclusion of ME 1, the gameplay is good but not outstanding. The special flavour on top of this always was the crew and party aspect. With the MET they took the right course to have a continious story going on for the same character cast which is easily the reason why it's holding such a special place in the heart of the gaming community (also proven with the huge amount of sales from the LE compared to Andromeda).
Iakus addressed the other issue I have had in this thread so far today - that the Geth were definitely for sure for sure Live Free or Die Harder. That is a farce, we know this lore too well to try and fling something that against the wall here. Please.
As for the quoted text, if a definition in Wikipedia (not the best place to find word definitions, for the record) does not match a hypothetical situation you are trying to apply it to, some reasoning will need to be applied. The question you, damdil , need to ask yourself is this - did Legion have a soul? If you said no, then the rest is simple and easy. Let the robots die, they were just robots. If you said yes... intent is meaningless. The Geth, and other AI races, had no choice in the matter. Even if some of them would have agreed to it, it would have been a difficult consensus to achieve; a rock/hard place for even the coldest calculator. If you study philosophy at all, the dilemma is gone once you answer that question, and if you are honest in your philosophy, the answer is yes. Legion is the dumbest robot in the galaxy, gotta be human to be that fucking naive.
I disagree that BioWare has done "something wrong" in changing protagonists. The Dragon Age games, until now, were built to be standalone adventures to an extent. This allows the world to be larger, not smaller. Now they have given themselves another problem with DAI - the story seemed finished, and then a DLC said lol nupe. DA4 will suffer the same roasting that MEA and Anthem received, if the Inquisitor's story and character aren't served in an at least palatable way. It is a tall order, there are fans here that 180'd on BioWare because of Trespasser. I don't blame them, but I had already been clued in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
12213
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2022 18:00:22 GMT
Doesn't change the fact that the Geth were willing to die to see the Reapers stopped at that point in the narrative, which wouldn't make Destroy a betrayal/genocide of synthetics as those very synthetics were willing to put their lives on the line to make it possible for the Red ending to happen. Even EDI says it views the Reapers as "repulsive". And no war has been won without sacrificing soldiers on the battlefield, or without doing some.... questionable things. Classic ends justify the means nonsense.
It's almost like you accept war as inevitable, rather than the result of angry rich people wanting a new or different Oompa Loompa, NOW.
Tell me about a war with a clean and obviously pure motive on one side, and filthy dark evil on the other. I want to know this story, I want to believe this story. It didn't ever happen though. There is always hidden subtext, and there are always motives that make no sense to those not in power, and nothing was ever "sacrificed" by the winning or losing side - the only sacrifice was in the individual, and their commitment to the cause that killed them.
If you have to do "questionable things" to win a war, you are a warlord and I want to eat you.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:01:43 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,270
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Apr 6, 2022 18:18:44 GMT
Even EDI says it views the Reapers as "repulsive". And no war has been won without sacrificing soldiers on the battlefield, or without doing some.... questionable things. Classic ends justify the means nonsense.
It's almost like you accept war as inevitable, rather than the result of angry rich people wanting a new or different Oompa Loompa, NOW.
Tell me about a war with a clean and obviously pure motive on one side, and filthy dark evil on the other. I want to know this story, I want to believe this story. It didn't ever happen though. There is always hidden subtext, and there are always motives that make no sense to those not in power, and nothing was ever "sacrificed" by the winning or losing side - the only sacrifice was in the individual, and their commitment to the cause that killed them.
*If you have to do "questionable things" to win a war, you are a warlord and I want to eat you.
*. Tell that to the US when they fire bombed then nuked Japan in WW2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
12213
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2022 18:22:07 GMT
Classic ends justify the means nonsense.
It's almost like you accept war as inevitable, rather than the result of angry rich people wanting a new or different Oompa Loompa, NOW.
Tell me about a war with a clean and obviously pure motive on one side, and filthy dark evil on the other. I want to know this story, I want to believe this story. It didn't ever happen though. There is always hidden subtext, and there are always motives that make no sense to those not in power, and nothing was ever "sacrificed" by the winning or losing side - the only sacrifice was in the individual, and their commitment to the cause that killed them.
*If you have to do "questionable things" to win a war, you are a warlord and I want to eat you.
*. Tell that to the US when they fire bombed then nuked Japan in WW2. Am in the US. Can't change the past. My response to this has been - never joined the military, regardless of how bad my struggle was at the time and the death of options at my disposal. Never supported the Military Industrial Complex. Spoke out against war and against environmental abuse to anyone who would listen and many that didn't want to.
Your example is golden though... the US knew it was coming and did nothing to stop Pearl Harbor. Hmmmmmm reasons. Learn more.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Apr 6, 2022 18:22:14 GMT
And if I wanted depressing sh*t like that I'd read the newspaper and have saved myself the money from buying the games. Especially after they spent the trilogy crowing "there's always another way" and "your choices matter" I'm too old for railroaded edgelord "choices" Oh believe me, I detest the nature of the endings too and wish that the conclusion of the trilogy would have seen us assembling a fleet (following our choices and decisions) and allowing us to save the day and be Big Damn Heroes. Unfortunately the way Casey and Co wanted to write this as their own (poor) version of The End of Evangelion. Given what the narrative gives us to work with, and seeing as how Destroying the Reapers was the stated goal since game 1, I see the Red ending as the best option out of a selection of crappy endings. It would have been nice to have Refuse actually work, based on if we could assemble a large enough fleet plus war assets but alas that is not the case. BioWare was adament on that being the F**K YOU ending for those players that didn't want to go along with their ABC conclusion to the trilogy. Even "least bad" is still freakin' horrible. It makes Shepard worse than Saren on his best day. He was "trying to save more lives" too. The fact that Blue and Green are EVEN WORSE does not detract from this. Thus I totally reject the narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
12213
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2022 18:24:28 GMT
Oh believe me, I detest the nature of the endings too and wish that the conclusion of the trilogy would have seen us assembling a fleet (following our choices and decisions) and allowing us to save the day and be Big Damn Heroes. Unfortunately the way Casey and Co wanted to write this as their own (poor) version of The End of Evangelion. Given what the narrative gives us to work with, and seeing as how Destroying the Reapers was the stated goal since game 1, I see the Red ending as the best option out of a selection of crappy endings. It would have been nice to have Refuse actually work, based on if we could assemble a large enough fleet plus war assets but alas that is not the case. BioWare was adament on that being the F**K YOU ending for those players that didn't want to go along with their ABC conclusion to the trilogy. Even "least bad" is still freakin' horrible. It makes Shepard worse than Saren on his best day. He was "trying to save more lives" too. The fact that Blue and Green are EVEN WORSE does not detract from this. Thus I totally reject the narrative. But it's ok if Shepard does it, Shepard is the bestest guy!
Shepard is a monster, must be killed the hell with the cost. Hackett out.
|
|
inherit
2754
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:01:43 GMT
5,958
Son of Dorn
Fortifying everything.
6,270
Jan 11, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
January 2017
doomlolz
Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by Son of Dorn on Apr 6, 2022 18:30:00 GMT
*. Tell that to the US when they fire bombed then nuked Japan in WW2. Am in the US. Can't change the past. My response to this has been - never joined the military, regardless of how bad my struggle was at the time and the death of options at my disposal. Never supported the Military Industrial Complex. Spoke out against war and against environmental abuse to anyone who would listen and many that didn't want to.
Your example is golden though... the US knew it was coming and did nothing to stop Pearl Harbor. Hmmmmmm reasons. Learn more.
There's a lot more to bring up, but this isn't a war history thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
12213
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 25, 2024 12:38:03 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2022 18:32:58 GMT
Am in the US. Can't change the past. My response to this has been - never joined the military, regardless of how bad my struggle was at the time and the death of options at my disposal. Never supported the Military Industrial Complex. Spoke out against war and against environmental abuse to anyone who would listen and many that didn't want to.
Your example is golden though... the US knew it was coming and did nothing to stop Pearl Harbor. Hmmmmmm reasons. Learn more.
There's a lot more to bring up, but this isn't a war history thread. Agreed. Your simple example was not so simple, and thus not a very good example. I can leave it at that.
|
|