661 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Legbiter wrote...

If Earth is a complete write-off while the rest of the galaxy got through mostly unscathed the best case scenario will have humanity (a hundred million at most) become a client race of the turians. We'd have less pull than the hanar.

Do the Hanar have dreadnoughts?
Do the Hanar have fighter carriers?
Do the Hanar have stealth frigates?
Do the Hanar have E.D.Is?

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's the Turians (and everybody else) that are going to be a client race of the Humans, once the Earthen parasites are annihilated by the Reapers.

You think that the Alliance would go protect its fleet and let Earth burn?  Assume we lose a large number of those.

And how exactly would humanity continue to staff and support this fleet? The colony bumpkins won't have a lot of factories or scientists or trained military personal. And if the Batarians decided to take out a few colonies, they know we won't be able to quickly rebuild and can easily win any war of attrition.

Do you think if the U.S. mainland population got annialated that Hawaii and Alaska could support the U.S. armed forces?

Nope, humanity becomes pets of the Turians.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

I would not be pissed, I would be pleased.  This way, humans would have to stand on their own feet, instead of being propped up by plot/protheans/the writers.  "Humans Are Special" is not a good trope.  Stop using it.

Sales figures suggest you are wrong.

[Almostfaceman]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

To sum up: if the council meets a race that is
1. Ambitious
2. Capable of widespread expansion
3. Capable of diplomacy
4. Capable of militarizing

That race will get a seat on the council eventually. Every race other than the council races fails at least one of those tests. Even a vastly weakened humanity would still pass them all, after a few generations, as long as they don't become too militant or incapable of diplomacy; that's how the Krogan and the Batarians screwed themselves out of a solid future. What's more, we're the council's only real hope if the Turians all of a sudden decide to go kill-crazy. Bear in mind the Turians spent 1200 years having an interplanetary civil war with themselves. The only reason they stopped was that they killed themselves out, and then they immediately were willing to go fight in another centuries long war. Finally, the first time they ever encounter a new race, they start a war. Compared to that, human history is basically a sack fulla rainbows.

Honestly the whole council vs. associate thing bothers me profoundly. If my Shep comes out of this with any political power, she's going to fight for some sort of actual representation for non-council races who are members of the Citadel.

You make a good point but I think you're discounting the comparision between humanity being introduced to the Council races as the Alliance vs. humans scattered about after the devastation of losing Earth.

I think it's "unrealistic" if I may use that word in this fictional universe - to not expect forces in just about every other race - government or otherwise - to take advantage of humans weakness so that they can further their own race.  Some factors, like the batarians, will be out-n-out hostile.  Other forces could be benign at first then evolve into a type of dictatorship.  "Ah, we let you humans come to our colony - now you grow too numerous. To make sure you don't take too many jobs from our race, we want you to start this colony at X planet and then set up certain jobs/resources for us there.  We will share of course, as long as you prove yourself worthy."  We have only to look at our own history to see how one group is always scrabbling for domination over another.  Losing Earth would in my opinion set humans back quite a bit.

I'm not arguing that losing earth wouldn't set us back. It would probably set us back a thousand years, if not more. I'm arguing that it wouldn't necessarily make us irrelevant or endangered.

I'm sorry if I've missed this, but I haven't seen you address a factor I find fairly significant: the fact that, if humanity is devastated, it will be due to a threat that we warned the galaxy about, and one that threatened everyone. I think we will be seen as having "taken a bullet for everyone," and it will all come down to spin. (If we're devastated by anything other than the Reapers, or if the rest of the galaxy never acknowledges the fact that the Reapers were a threat to anyone but us then yes, we are boned. However, for the purpose of the ME3 universe, I find those scenarios incredibly unlikely.)

Argh I know a perfect human history analogue, but I do not want this to become one of those threads. So I am going to describe the situation. Consider it theoretical. Please don't chime in with the answer, if you know it.

Ahem. So there's a nation. Very new to serious involvement in global politics, minor colonial power, almost comically misunderstood by the outside world, engaged in a lot of wars of expansion, made some powerful local enemies. Took the wrong side in a war, was first vilified then devastated by that war, could easily have been utterly destroyed by its enemies. Weakened severely, losing morale, unconditional surrender. Stripped of the right to have a full military.

(This is the status I see humanity having after a worst-case scenario Reaper slaughter on earth... with the added bonus that the "country" who devastated them isn't involved in global politics.)

Nation reaches out to the global community. Nation's devastation during the war evokes sympathy from the rest of the world. Nation forms steady, decades-long alliance with former worst enemy, unprecedented prosperity, becomes the nation with the highest average standard of living on its continent. Continued political relevance, despite being surrounded by old enemies.

If humanity will do that for a nation that was on the wrong side of a major war, why is it unrealistic to expect the galactic community to do the same for us? And that example is more akin to humanity being devastated by war with the Asari. Now imagine a major country isn't destroyed in a war of their own instigation or hit by a falling meteor: that country is attacked by gorram alien cthulubots. 

There's a famous quote that I can't find a clear citation for, about what happens when humanity is threatened from the outside: "Black and white live in perfect harmony and gang up on green." or the like. It's a Pratchett quote.

Now you could take that as evidence that speciesism overwhelms all other priorities, but i look at it a different way: when the enemies are giant Cthulubots from Dark Space, black, white, blue, green, and grey will get together and gang up on Cthulubot. Organics banding together against the Reapers seems as natural as humanity banding together in response to an alien attack.

I know what nation you speak of, and in that case that nation was able to hold onto its territory.  Its defeat was not such that it lost its place to bounce back.

The Alliance has colonies - but all of them are tiny in comparison to Earth at this stage.  If Earth is gone, they will be extremely vulnerable to attack.  All our places to retreat and regroup are almost undefended.  I say that batarians, terminus system forces, even "rogue" turian groups, even rogue "krogan" groups could attack these colonies.  

And I won't repeat previous posts from this point.

The "human is a hero race" argument is really the only reason why I'd think that some human segments will surive.  But yes I agree it will be a 1000 years or more for humanity to bounce back.  I'd say even longer if not for the long memories of the asari, since future generations have a nasty habit of forgetting their history.

[jamesp81]

Tleining wrote...

@ james81
i think you are a bit too caught up in the population numbers. From everything we've heard about earth, without the constant flow of ressources and money from the colonies, it would turn belly-up pretty fast. Horizon apparently did pretty well without support from earth/Alliance. Why couldn't the same be true for the other colonies?
With Elysium, Terra Nova and Eden Prime we have three colonies which are doing pretty well for themselves. Even without Earth, humanity would go on.

In order to support 13-14 Billion humans, earth is needed, but if 12 billion die, the Colonies should be able to pick up the slack. Unlike the Quarians, humanity doesn't have to flee from an enemy. Theoretically, it's possible.

If earth is destroyed, it could also mean that the Fleet is pulling back in Order to gather for a final strike. You might assume, that the destruction of earth means the destruction of the fleet as well, but there are other possiblities. Not to mention, that if the Alliance fleet gets destroyed, the other species will suffer losses as well. No one will get out of this war unscathed.
It also looks like the Reapers will reach Batarian Space first, wonder what effect that will have on their fleet.

No, destruction of Earth implies destruction of the Fleet.  There is not an Admiral or General in the Alliance military that would obey an order to abandon Earth in order to gather for a final strike.  That would NOT happen.

[Whatever42]

Tleining wrote...

@ james81
i think you are a bit too caught up in the population numbers. From everything we've heard about earth, without the constant flow of ressources and money from the colonies, it would turn belly-up pretty fast. Horizon apparently did pretty well without support from earth/Alliance. Why couldn't the same be true for the other colonies?
With Elysium, Terra Nova and Eden Prime we have three colonies which are doing pretty well for themselves. Even without Earth, humanity would go on.

In order to support 13-14 Billion humans, earth is needed, but if 12 billion die, the Colonies should be able to pick up the slack. Unlike the Quarians, humanity doesn't have to flee from an enemy. Theoretically, it's possible.

If earth is destroyed, it could also mean that the Fleet is pulling back in Order to gather for a final strike. You might assume, that the destruction of earth means the destruction of the fleet as well, but there are other possiblities. Not to mention, that if the Alliance fleet gets destroyed, the other species will suffer losses as well. No one will get out of this war unscathed.
It also looks like the Reapers will reach Batarian Space first, wonder what effect that will have on their fleet.

It's called an economy. The cities of the world are all sponges for resources. Without the farmers and the loggers and the miners and the fishers, the cities would go belly up fast. However, without the cities, you have no scientists or logistians or planners or manufacturers or many, many other vital fuctions. It's all interrrelated. You can't simply say Earth is a sponge.

And one thing to remember about population - the more people you have, the more exceptional people you have. That means more brilliant admirals, that means more brilliant scientists, that means more brilliant diplomats. And output is not linear. Two brilliant scientists do not produce twice the output of one brilliant scientist. They product more than twice because they can collaborate and build off each other's work. That is one of the main reasons our scientific advancement is accelerating so quickly.

Cull 90% of the human population, cull all those brilliant people, cull all those manufacturers and planners and yout get humanity vastly reduced in power and in potential.

[Whatever42]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Being marketable doesn't make it "good".

To you. If its good to many people then its marketable.

[Almostfaceman]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

I would not be pissed, I would be pleased.  This way, humans would have to stand on their own feet, instead of being propped up by plot/protheans/the writers.  "Humans Are Special" is not a good trope.  Stop using it.

I think popularity necessarily indicates quality.

Fixed that for you.  It's lazy story-telling, brah, that's the whole of it.

To you it is.  For a lot of people, it's not.  Bioware isn't making a game designed for you.  Bioware is making a game that will appeal to the widest audience.  That's really all any producer that's competing in the marketplace can do.

[Whatever42]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

I would not be pissed, I would be pleased.  This way, humans would have to stand on their own feet, instead of being propped up by plot/protheans/the writers.  "Humans Are Special" is not a good trope.  Stop using it.

I think popularity necessarily indicates quality.

Fixed that for you.  It's lazy story-telling, brah, that's the whole of it.

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

I would not be pissed, I would be pleased.  This way, humans would have to stand on their own feet, instead of being propped up by plot/protheans/the writers.  "Humans Are Special" is not a good trope.  Stop using it.

I think popularity necessarily indicates quality.

Fixed that for you.  It's lazy story-telling, brah, that's the whole of it.

Really?  I take it you didn't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then, since they both had happy endings?

It is not, in any way, lazy story telling.  It's no better or worse than using the dystopian trope you seem to be so in love with.  Both have been repeatedly throughout history.

Modifié par jamesp81, 06 avril 2011 - 03:01 .

[Babli]

[DrunkenChakwas]THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!![/DrunkenChakwas]

[Almostfaceman]

yorkj86 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

To you it is.  For a lot of people, it's not.  Bioware isn't making a game designed for you.  Bioware is making a game that will appeal to the widest audience.  That's really all any producer that's competing in the marketplace can do.

None of those statements are compliments, to the respective groups they're aimed at.

In your opinion.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

Laziness makes laziness permissible?  Lack of creativity makes lack of creativity permissible?

You know there are really only about a dozen or so major plots in all of literature?  The backdrop and characters change, but the basic plots remain the same.  Now, if you're such a literary genius that you can add to that even though the last 4000 years of writers have not been able to, then by all means, put in a resume at BioWare and show us all how it's done.

[Almostfaceman]

yorkj86 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

Laziness makes laziness permissible?  Lack of creativity makes lack of creativity permissible?

Your standards are not universal standards - they are only your standards.  Your opinion is not as relevant as you'd apparently like it to be.

[Whatever42]

yorkj86 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

Laziness makes laziness permissible?  Lack of creativity makes lack of creativity permissible?

Gve me a story that is truly original. I can probably name a few but they are far between. We've been writing stories now for several thousand years - originality is incredibly rare.

I also love people whining about laziness when inevitably they're lazily waiting for someone else to give them something.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 06 avril 2011 - 03:04 .

[jamesp81]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Every story has been done to death. Having humans being all wiped out has been done to death. You have your favorite tropes, other people have theirs.

Laziness makes laziness permissible?  Lack of creativity makes lack of creativity permissible?

Gve me a story that is truly original. I can probably name a few but they are far between. We've been writing stories now for several thousand years - originality is incredibly rare.

Indeed.  Every story has already been written.  It's not about making up new plots, it's about skillfully telling the stories we have in an enjoyable manner.  I'm only an amateur writer; I do it for fun on the side, but it didn't take me long to figure this out.

I've always thought the few basic stories that dominate human literature say a lot about who we are and how we think.  To create new, original plots would require someone to not think like a human being.  That's something that's not especially likely to happen.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Really?  I take it you didn't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then, since they both had happy endings?

It is not, in any way, lazy story telling.  It's no better or worse than using the dystopian trope you seem to be so in love with.  Both have been repeatedly throughout history.

It depends.  In Lord of the Rings, the human rise to power at the end of the series, is made possible because of the sacrifices of Hobbits.  Otherwise, everything would have been obliterated.

It is lazy storytelling, because of the way "Humans Are Special."  The writers are, quite literally, meddling with the galaxy, in order to accelerate humans to the political forefront.

The Hobbits survived the war.  The Shire survived.  Gondor and Rohan survived.  Frodo had some scars from the whole thing as you would expect from anyone who had fought a war.  He lived happily ever after with the Elves, Samwise lived happily ever after with the beautiful Rosy Cotton.

I'm looking for a similar ending to the ME trilogy.  That will not include Earth being destroyed.

[jamesp81]

yorkj86 wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Really?  I take it you didn't like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then, since they both had happy endings?

It is not, in any way, lazy story telling.  It's no better or worse than using the dystopian trope you seem to be so in love with.  Both have been repeatedly throughout history.

It depends.  In Lord of the Rings, the human rise to power at the end of the series, is made possible because of the sacrifices of Hobbits.  Otherwise, everything would have been obliterated.

It is lazy storytelling, because of the way "Humans Are Special."  The writers are, quite literally, meddling with the galaxy, in order to accelerate humans to the political forefront.

The Humans Are Special trope is a very popular one and makes for great plotlines, even if you don't think so.  If it didn't, it wouldn't keep being used.

If you want a dystopian story where Earth gets exterminated, go write one.  Don't be messing with this particular story, though.