Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
I don't know if you're being a so and so or just playing devils advocate. I hope the latter.
Anyway they stop being victims or refugees once they start murdering people.
Also there's only one "scientist", who you do not even know if she is actually educated at all. The test she has created, which they use as an excuse to murder people, using the figures they themselves give you, is only 11% accurate. And it might actually be lower as you never find out what thier threshold for killing people is, you only find out they're 70% sure on Stockton. And you know just from the methodology it's flawed, asking random questions and intuiting the response is not an objective method. Oh and I almost forgot, they also have no way of confirming thier findings as according to the narrative Gen 3 synths are medically indistinguishable from humans (even though the player finds synth parts...) so she can't actually have any way of discerning her successes from failures despite her claiming she can via autopsy.
Again, it's not a mission made to make you think. Only pseudointellectuals and oxhorn viewers try to pretend this is a thought provoking game. She's a cartoon villain holding a damsel in distress and your options are to twirl your moustache right along side her as she murders the damsel or rescue the damsel. That's the entire game.
(Oh and if you're actually curious, I always side with covenant actually as I play heavy weapons users and ammo is a massive problem for heavy weapons, so the more stores you have access to the better.)
The Battle of Bunker Hill has an interesting bit there that I observed recently.
When you meet the synths that are the mission targets, you can ask them about the Institute. But they're curiously vague about the details. They say they want to leave, but don't really know why and can't explain what was bad about it that made them want to do so.
No, they're still victims or refugees; being one isn't mutually exclusive with being a murderer. A victim can still victimize others.
Of course, it's hard to guarantee that they're actually victims of synth activities without knowing much about them. Dr. Chambers and Ted Huntley (via Jacob Orden) have specific claims of synth activity, but it's hard to say whether or not the others just latched onto synths as an explainable cause for whatever happened to them. All too many people in the wasteland seem to treat the word "synth" as interchangeable with "witch".
The other problem with their method is that they don't seem to be checking whether "Pass" results are correct, just "Fail" results. If the test someone registers as human at the gates of Covenant, they let them go and have no idea whether or not the test was right.
Since they have no idea how many synths are actually about, they could get their current results by spinning a roulette wheel and seeing if it stops on red or black. It's bound to randomly select a passing synth now and then, which they will take as confirmation of the test's effectiveness.
For me it was choosing between two evils. Either a lesser, or a greater, depending on how you see things. No matter what you do, you have to commit one of these evils. So what is the result?
Make no decision at all. Just walk away. That's the only way to win.
With the test being either nonfunctional or outright harmful, you're simply weighing the lives of the people in Covenant against the lives of everyone they're going to keep killing, and even within the limited context we see there's already a count of 15 or 16 people dead from their work (12 subjects, plus the caravan and Amelia).
Walking away is basically already the "support Covenant" option; they don't ask you to assist them, they just want you to turn a blind eye to what they're doing.
So you either have to side with the people who are experimenting on, then killing off many innocents, or you have to murder everyone involved personally and get your own hands bloody.
Their motivation is also questionable, since it's not clear whether they're actually driven by a true desire to help anyone else, or acting out of a desire for personal security and control in the face of their past trauma. The attitude of a number of them is of someone clinging to a psychological lifeline, rather than someone with a drive to make the world a better place.
Personal involvement seems more the issue. Do you bloody your own hands, or just watch knowing that much more blood will be shed by someone else?
Covenant is making its own judgement in terms of greater good, but going by that moral method I would argue that its course of action is unsupportable. Future good in that method has to be weighed in terms of its probability (which is also why the far future generally has less weight, being less certain), and the evidence indicates that their success is extremely unlikely. That should make them stop, but they're deluding themselves into continuing because they have a psychological need for success.
In terms of greater good (which is how Covenant is judging things), a 90% chance of harming 10 people should have more moral weight than a 1% chance of helping 100 people.
You're missing the point in that what thier primary quality is changes. A refugee is it's own thing, but once that refugee starts murdering people the fact they're fleeing something no longer matters and they become a problem that needs to be solved.
The key point there is that "refugee" isn't a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card in the first place (context can still have some bearing, it's just not an automatic excuse).
I don't think it's all that complicated in moral terms, though it does raise some questions about how trauma can severely warp someone's judgement of their actions.
Potentially also some questions of deference to authority, when such people are in a position where others are making the decisions about what needs to be done.
The GOAT test is just silly. But to call it as a "fraud"? Please allow me to not agree with you on this matter.
It is actually fraudulent in this context. "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities." It's intended to deceive outsiders and possibly themselves into believing their random murders are somehow justified and that their settlement is safe. It does this by being credited with an ability to discern synth (and "bad guy") from human that it doesn't have.