3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Some are more equal then others.

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...

HomelessGal wrote...

I think it would be fair to say that the human councilor is "least among equals" in the Council, though.

Depends on what way you mean it, if you mean we have less of a say, then i disagree, simply because its not shown to be the case as of yet, but in terms of being last in then we're dealing with already built up relationships between the other council members who've probably worked together for a long time, so in that sense we are least amongst equals since we've yet to build those relationships.

It has been shown that we are 'less than.'

During the events of ME2, after the disappearance of several colonies, Anderson requests increased access to the space tracking network after the others block the motion for a Council lead investigation team. If Anderson had the same amount of privileges as the other Concillor's, then this wouldn't make sense because he'd already have access to the network as befits being a representative on the Council, and he wouldn't need 'more' access or even request access to begin with.

[InkognitoY]

 Sorry if I'm late, but I wanted to bring the content of this review up for discussion:

(Arguing for keeping the collector base):

"The idea is that you can use a neutron bomb to wipe out all life on the station, and then Cerberus can come in and pick through the technology at their leisure. According to the game designers, this is an unambiguously evil move. Every single member of your crew – including the amoral Krogen, the nihilistic Jack, the pragmatic pro-science Mordin, and the pro-Cerberus Miranda – will approve of you destroying the base. This isn’t a brilliant shades-of-gray decision like we see elsewhere in the game, this is a black-and-white choice where the whole crew agrees that the paragon course of action (option #2) is the right one.If you choose the paragon option, Shepard decides to blow up the base saying, “I won’t let fear compromise who I am.” And later, “We’ll beat [the Reapers] without sacrificing the soul of our species.”

1) Proof. By this point you have now spent two whole games trying to convince the rest of the galaxy that the Reaper threat is real. One of the major reasons the battle is so desperate is because you’ve been working alone. Here is unambiguous proof of an advanced enemy with hostile intentions.2) Memorial. Keeping the facility is crucial for understanding who died here, and how. If nothing else, looking for bodies and dogtags to send home would have been worthwhile and offer some families a sense of closure.3) Technology. Yes, study the technology. Just because the Slurpee machine of evilness is horrible doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t understand how it works and why. Particularly when you’re in a war and the enemy has you outmatched in both numbers and tech. The idea that we shouldn’t understand a technology because it has been used in evil ways is a line of reasoning that borders on primitive superstition.4) Intel. How does the enemy communicate? What is their history? What are their plans? Up until now the Reapers have been a great big question mark, and this is our first chance to fill in some blanks by digging around in their computers and reading their mail.Even if there was some unforeseen danger to keeping the station, we could blow it up anytime we want if it turned out to be a problem. This isn’t a decision that needs to be made on the battlefield.
Keeping the facility harms no innocent civilians or does anything else that might be considered cruel, mean, or even just rude. (Anyone left on the station will die either way.) There is no reason to blow this thing up. Doing so is the most idiotic and self-defeating decision you could possibly make. If studying the Collector base is evil, then what do we say about those Allied forces that captured Auschwitz instead of blowing it up? They had far less need to keep that place than Shepard & crew need the Collector base. (And the death toll was higher by almost an order of magnitude.)If it’s so evil to give the Collector tech to Cerberus that doing so would “sacrifice the soul of our species”, then Cerberus is simply too evil to work with. If Shepard is going to walk away from the base saying “We’ll find some other way” without even having an alternate plan, then he should have said the same thing to Cerberus at the very start of the game. You can’t have it both ways.But the main problem problem is that the game will only let you give the tech exclusively to Cerberus. This is a false binary choice: Give the Slurpee tech to Cerberus, or blow up the most crucial source of tech and intel since the war began. The most responsible, sensible, and pragmatic course of action is the one the game won’t even let you consider: Keep the station and show it to the Alliance, the Council, and whoever else might want a tour of the place. Since your ship is the only one with the tech to get here, it should be up to you who gets to visit."

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


LOL..shows how much you know about politics. You'e basicly acknolwedging that the most powerfull onse are assured to remain the most powerfull ones withtin that system.

I was explaining how the eu handles the membership of new members and places restrictions on those new members, something that is in fact the case, so i think my understanding of politics in this case is perhaps better than yours.

In terms of your analogy that humanity in mass effect was the same as croatia and slovenia in the eu, i was pointing out the reason why the analogy is flawed, which is simply this, where in mass effect does it show these restricitions being placed upon humanity?

Where does it shows there arne't any?

And you're the one missing the point of the comparions. The point isn't invisible restriction - it's political power.

Within the EU there are member nations that are powers and member nations that are not. The roots of that power lie in the pre-established pwoer strucutre, economical, military, cultural and strategic factors.

A country like Slovenia will NEVER have the same clout as Great Britain, no matter how equal it apears on paper. BG can pressure smaller countries (or should I say, lesser memebrs). Tha's how politics works - your countries needs are no1.

There is no such things as "equl say". If you have more ships, a better economy and a better politicla position, you have more pull, regardless how one looks on paper. You cna effectivley bully/blackmail things into your favor. taht's how things work.
On the surface it may look clean and all...but under the table it's another matter compeltely.

In a council where choices are made up by consensus then each member has exactly the same say, so show me where in mass effect its shown that this isn't how the council works?

Real world politics or how things are done in reality only prove your point if you can show the example in mass effect  that correlates to that point, something that isn't the case.

No. Real world examples are the default, unless ti's show to work otherwise. And IF political power worked different in the ME unvierse, that would be the biggest cheese ever. You dont' create a believable universe but making things unbelievable. Politicians should act like politicians. Militaries should act like militaries.

And yeah, you are utterly blind to the way politics works. What if the Asari councilor demands the SA sign a unfavorable trade agreement? The Asari have a far bigger pull and a more stable economy - they can pressure the SA, since they can afford to. Not to mention that they also have a closer ties to the Turians and Salarians, so  they can practicly force their will on the SA..

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

@Lotion

Why is it not believable that alien politics would be different?

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...



It has been shown that we are 'less than.'

During the events of ME2, after the disappearance of several colonies, Anderson requests increased access to the space tracking network after the others block the motion for a Council lead investigation team. If Anderson had the same amount of privileges as the other Concillor's, then this wouldn't make sense because he'd already have access to the network as befits being a representative on the Council, and he wouldn't need 'more' access or even request access to begin with.

I was not aware of that so thanks for pointing it out, just one question though, You say increased access after the council blocked the motion for a team, is it shown anywhere that the access we already have is less than the other members and thats why we're looking for increased access, or could it be that the access we're looking for is more than what everyone else has?

Not disputing your point, just trying to clarify.

[Arppis]

Saphra Deden wrote...

InkognitoY wrote...

 Sorry if I'm late, but I wanted to bring the content of this review up for discussion:

I've had that one book marked since I first read it a year ago. It's excellent.

Puts a nice perspective to it... Except there is a good reason to blow it up. Illusive man would have used the base to gain edge for humanity over other races and he even said that he wants to secure human dominance in galaxy. So does he mean that he wants other races to become 2nd class citizens compaired to humans?

But yeah, if there would have been a 3rd choice and to give it to alliance, I would have done so.

Modifié par Arppis, 17 août 2011 - 02:20 .

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Where does it shows there arne't any?

And you're the one missing the point of the comparions. The point isn't invisible restriction - it's political power.

Within the EU there are member nations that are powers and member nations that are not. The roots of that power lie in the pre-established pwoer strucutre, economical, military, cultural and strategic factors.

A country like Slovenia will NEVER have the same clout as Great Britain, no matter how equal it apears on paper. BG can pressure smaller countries (or should I say, lesser memebrs). Tha's how politics works - your countries needs are no1.

If its shown in game that no restrictions are placed on humanity joining the council which it is, then to argue that this doesn't mean there are restrictions placed on humanity joining the council is a flawed argument.

Prove the restrictions exist or the simple truth is they don't.

I never said you analogy didn't show there were any restrictions in the particular references you made in terms of the eu, what in fact i did say was that the analogy itself is flawed as it equates Humanities position in the council to slovenia/croatias in the eu which it doesn't since the restrictions placed on those nations was up front and there are no upfront restrictions placed on humanity joining the council.

Secondly in terms of your overall analogy and the political reasons behind why those restrictions are placed on those countries in the eu, apart from it having no actual bearing on the topic since its a flawed analogy, the reasons those restrictions were placed on those countries and the people who placed them on them were not in fact the larger more powerful countries in the first place.

It was in fact the smaller countries protecting their own position in the eu who mainly placed the restrictions on the new members, i know because being Irish i had to vote on them, so not only is your analogy flawed in the first place but the reasoning your trying to use for the analogy is flawed also.

No. Real world examples are the default, unless ti's show to work otherwise. And IF political power worked different in the ME unvierse, that would be the biggest cheese ever. You dont' create a believable universe but making things unbelievable. Politicians should act like politicians. Militaries should act like militaries.

And yeah, you are utterly blind to the way politics works. What if the Asari councilor demands the SA sign a unfavorable trade agreement? The Asari have a far bigger pull and a more stable economy - they can pressure the SA, since they can afford to. Not to mention that they also have a closer ties to the Turians and Salarians, so  they can practicly force their will on the SA..

Again they aren't for the simple reason that its not a real life situation, your argument is that the universe in mass effect must be believable which then means that it must conform to real life in certain situations, but considering we're playing  a sci fi game set in a fictional universe this is seriously a completly flawed argument.

Certain things of course must correlate but everything in the universe must only adhere to the laws and rules of that universe, its not a sim its a fictional sci fi game so real world ideals don't actually apply.

There are similarities with how politicians work and how politics itself work but its not exact so again why does it need to be exactly the same since it is after all fiction not fact.

As for the what if argument, again in order to prove something a what if doesn't cut it, if you don't have a definitive to prove your point then you can't prove the point at all.

[alperez]

Arppis wrote...



Puts a nice perspective to it... Except there is a good reason to blow it up. Illusive man would have used the base to gain edge for humanity over other races and he even said that he wants to secure human dominance in galaxy. So does he mean that he wants other races to become 2nd class citizens compaired to humans?

But yeah, if there would have been a 3rd choice and to give it to alliance, I would have done so.

Problem with the perspective its to easy to argue a certain perspective if you disagree with the alternative, if you believe the base shouldn't be destroyed there are numerous reasons why this can be explained and reasoned to make it seem like that's the only choice that should be made.

WIthout arguing or showing the counter then your biasing the argument too much in one direction, as you say there are reasons why the base being destroyed is a counter which the perspectiive doesn't show.

As handing the base to the alliance and why thats not a choice, i've always said from the beginning that the choice isn't keep or destroy the base, its hand it or don't to cerberus which is why its presented as it is.

Saying that though i'm not sure if i would have handed it to the alliance over, now i think about it, but it would have made a more interesting problem, which again could be why they didin't present the option and left it as black and white as it was.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...
I never said you analogy didn't show there were any restrictions in the particular references you made in terms of the eu, what in fact i did say was that the analogy itself is flawed as it equates Humanities position in the council to slovenia/croatias in the eu which it doesn't since the restrictions placed on those nations was up front and there are no upfront restrictions placed on humanity joining the council.[/quote]

Actually you're wrong. There are no restriction placed on Slovenia, but it still has no real power. The GB could bully it.

[quote]
Secondly in terms of your overall analogy and the political reasons behind why those restrictions are placed on those countries in the eu, apart from it having no actual bearing on the topic since its a flawed analogy, the reasons those restrictions were placed on those countries and the people who placed them on them were not in fact the larger more powerful countries in the first place.

It was in fact the smaller countries protecting their own position in the eu who mainly placed the restrictions on the new members, i know because being Irish i had to vote on them, so not only is your analogy flawed in the first place but the reasoning your trying to use for the analogy is flawed also.
[quote]

I voted too and I say bollocks.
While your faith in democracy and the purity of the political leadership is admirable, it's also incredibly naive and stupid.




[quote][quote]
No. Real world examples are the default, unless ti's show to work otherwise. And IF political power worked different in the ME unvierse, that would be the biggest cheese ever. You dont' create a believable universe but making things unbelievable. Politicians should act like politicians. Militaries should act like militaries.

And yeah, you are utterly blind to the way politics works. What if the Asari councilor demands the SA sign a unfavorable trade agreement? The Asari have a far bigger pull and a more stable economy - they can pressure the SA, since they can afford to. Not to mention that they also have a closer ties to the Turians and Salarians, so  they can practicly force their will on the SA..

[/quote]
Again they aren't for the simple reason that its not a real life situation, your argument is that the universe in mass effect must be believable which then means that it must conform to real life in certain situations, but considering we're playing  a sci fi game set in a fictional universe this is seriously a completly flawed argument.

Certain things of course must correlate but everything in the universe must only adhere to the laws and rules of that universe, its not a sim its a fictional sci fi game so real world ideals don't actually apply.

There are similarities with how politicians work and how politics itself work but its not exact so again why does it need to be exactly the same since it is after all fiction not fact.

As for the what if argument, again in order to prove something a what if doesn't cut it, if you don't have a definitive to prove your point then you can't prove the point at all.
[/quote]

No. I don't care if it's a fictonal universe- same laws of common sense apply. Evolution, selective pressure and personal interest. You want me to belive the council races are above us? That they are better than the "filthy" humans. That their politicians, their nations, aren't motivated by interest? that they would neve abuse power? Good luck trying ot convince me of that!

And a what if agrumet is proof.
If the Asari CAN - even theorethicly - do tat, then they are in a dominatnat position.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Actually you're wrong. There are no restriction placed on Slovenia, but it still has no real power. The GB could bully it.

There was in fact restrictions placed on Slovenia in their inital joining of the eu, but we're starting to go off topic here.

As for the GB or any nation being able to bully another nation, again that's off topic but still doesn't prove the original point in your analogy which compared SLovenia/croatia's entry to the EU with humanities entry to the council.

I voted too and I say bollocks.
While your faith in democracy and the purity of the political leadership is admirable, it's also incredibly naive and stupid.

What a well thought out and phrased response, so because you too voted it disproves what i said in what way?

As for what faith i have in democracy and whether or not its stupid or naive, explaining to someone why something they're saying is a ridicolous argument is in no way is an indication of what someone may believe in.

You don't know me , have no idea of my politics, but because i point out the parts of your argument are wrong, you jump to a conclussion that my politics or my faith in democracy are something you have an idea about, again your clarivoyance is astounding.

No. I don't care if it's a fictonal universe- same laws of common sense apply. Evolution, selective pressure and personal interest. You want me to belive the council races are above us? That they are better than the "filthy" humans. That their politicians, their nations, aren't motivated by interest? that they would neve abuse power? Good luck trying ot convince me of that!

And a what if agrumet is proof.
If the Asari CAN - even theorethicly - do tat, then they are in a dominatnat position.

In a fictional universe the only rules that apply are the ones set down in that universe, to try and put real life rules that don't apply into that universe is a waste of time. I don't care what you believe, your perfectly entitled to believe anything you want to, what i do care about though is when you make a ridicolous argument based on those believes and not on the actual facts of the situation.

Politics and how its portrayed in mass effect is not exactly the same as it is in the real world, its that simple, whether you like it or believe it is irrelevant to the fact that this is indeed the case.

If its shown in game that people act a certain way, then until it is shown oterwise it can't be assumed they will act a different way just because in the real world this could be the case. in a fictional one what is shown is the case,.not what could be or what if, but what is until its shown otherwise, its that simple.

So until the asari or anyone else are shown to act a certain way you accept their actions as presented, using a what if scenario is putting information in place that is unknown is pure speculation.

Modifié par alperez, 17 août 2011 - 03:51 .

[SandTrout]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

as I've bee saying from the begining.

Teh GODZILLA TRESHOLD
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodzillaThreshold

Related to this, many fear that Renegade choices will cause a Death by Pragmatism.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."- Sir Winston Churchill.

Also: I just read that review,and I have to say I agree,the CB decision is one of the worst forced dilemmas ever put in game

1.It makes Shep look like a moron.
2.It eliminates the option you would have actually taken (if you support the SA)
3. It sets you up to fail(kinda) and when the paragons rise from the ashes,there will be a renerage the likes of which the gaming world has never seen.

[wilhelm Screamer]

I like blowing up the collector base because you get a wicked awesome explosion and you get to tell TIM to shut up.

[alperez]

Humanoid,

Regarding what your saying about it being one of the worst forced choices and that if the option to give it to the Sa was available then you would have taken it.

I've always suggested that imo we look at the choice in the wrong way, that it was never supposed to be a choice about the base but more about trusting or not cerberus.

If you analyse the reasons why the choice becomes so badly forced without that in mind then it does as you say make Shepard look stupid or make the choice itself seem forced for the wrong reason.

But if i'm right and the choice was in fact supposed to be more about cerberus then it actually makes much more sense for it to be presented as it was.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

alperez wrote...

Humanoid,

Regarding what your saying about it being one of the worst forced choices and that if the option to give it to the Sa was available then you would have taken it.

I've always suggested that imo we look at the choice in the wrong way, that it was never supposed to be a choice about the base but more about trusting or not cerberus.

If you analyse the reasons why the choice becomes so badly forced without that in mind then it does as you say make Shepard look stupid or make the choice itself seem forced for the wrong reason.

But if i'm right and the choice was in fact supposed to be more about cerberus then it actually makes much more sense for it to be presented as it was.

I suppose,but if you could have told TIM to get stuffed and then give the base to SA,council,Mordin,or whoever,aren't you still showing you don't trust Cerberus?

If it turns out to be about Cerberus,then it stands to reason the only thing that base has is a one way ticket to hell(or indoctrination)  that or the "all logical and rational" renegades,or people that just kept the base will encounter much tougher resistance from Cerberus.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 17 août 2011 - 06:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

@Lotion

Why is it not believable that alien politics would be different?

Becasue politics are as they are because of the realities of competition and evolution.

I don't believe in vise, benevolent alien politicians. I dont' belive in nations and races not looking out for themselves. It's as real as the moon being made of cheese. Compeltely unbeliveable socio-political behavior.

[alperez]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I suppose,but if you could have told TIM to get stuffed and then give the base to SA,council,Mordin,or whoever,aren't you still showing you don't trust Cerberus?

If it turns out to be about Cerberus,then it stands to reason the only thing that base has is a one way ticket to hell(or indoctrination)

Yes you would but if the benefits or not of the base itself weren't overly important in the grand scheme of things (fighting the reapers) and were instead only important due to cerberus then it makes sense that you eliminate any other choice and present it how it in the end was presented.

Give cerberus the base, your strenghtening a potential enemy, destroy it and your not, so if the choice was always about cerberus as i speculate then the outcome of that choice would only affect cerberus and your dealings with them, rather than any overall gamechanger.

When you consider that irrespective of the choice you make cerberus still get the base then it adds further into what i've said, cerberus without the base means a less effective enemy against you, with it a stronger one.

Or if they wish to reverse it, a stronger one simply because by destroying the base you force them to take bigger shortcuts leading to more extreme consequences in their experiments which leads to a stronger opposition for you to face in me3.

Indoctrination doesn't have to be the most dangerous consequence either, just simply a technological advantage would do.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Actually you're wrong. There are no restriction placed on Slovenia, but it still has no real power. The GB could bully it.

There was in fact restrictions placed on Slovenia in their inital joining of the eu, but we're starting to go off topic here.

As for the GB or any nation being able to bully another nation, again that's off topic but still doesn't prove the original point in your analogy which compared SLovenia/croatia's entry to the EU with humanities entry to the council.

What it proves is the nature of politics and dominance. Power on paper is useless unless it's backed up with real, tangible power.
The council allowing us a seat is no different than EU allowing slovenia a seat. You DON'T have as much power and say as others.

You don't know me , have no idea of my politics, but because i point out the parts of your argument are wrong, you jump to a conclussion that my politics or my faith in democracy are something you have an idea about, again your clarivoyance is astounding.

You seem to belive alien politicians are pure and benevolent and would never f**** humans up.
there is no other way to clasify it other than naive.

No. I don't care if it's a fictonal universe- same laws of common sense apply. Evolution, selective pressure and personal interest. You want me to belive the council races are above us? That they are better than the "filthy" humans. That their politicians, their nations, aren't motivated by interest? that they would neve abuse power? Good luck trying ot convince me of that!

And a what if agrumet is proof.
If the Asari CAN - even theorethicly - do tat, then they are in a dominatnat position.

In a fictional universe the only rules that apply are the ones set down in that universe, to try and put real life rules that don't apply into that universe is a waste of time. I don't care what you believe, your perfectly entitled to believe anything you want to, what i do care about though is when you make a ridicolous argument based on those believes and not on the actual facts of the situation.

Politics and how its portrayed in mass effect is not exactly the same as it is in the real world, its that simple, whether you like it or believe it is irrelevant to the fact that this is indeed the case.

If its shown in game that people act a certain way, then until it is shown oterwise it can't be assumed they will act a different way just because in the real world this could be the case. in a fictional one what is shown is the case,.not what could be or what if, but what is until its shown otherwise, its that simple.

So until the asari or anyone else are shown to act a certain way you accept their actions as presented, using a what if scenario is putting information in place that is unknown is pure speculation.

If the game is trying to go for any semblance of realism, then the defautl applies untill proven otherwise. I never see humans going in the bathroom to take a ******. Does that mean I shouldn't consider they do go to the bathroom, untill the game proves me otherwise?
No.

Politics works as it does because that's how it works best. Consider it a law of the universe and survival (of the fittest). For ME to abandon that would be the same as abandoning evolution or gravity - heck, even worse.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

@Lotion

Why is it not believable that alien politics would be different?

Becasue politics are as they are because of the realities of competition and evolution.

I don't believe in vise, benevolent alien politicians. I dont' belive in nations and races not looking out for themselves. It's as real as the moon being made of cheese. Compeltely unbeliveable socio-political behavior.

...Well said.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


What it proves is the nature of politics and dominance. Power on paper is useless unless it's backed up with real, tangible power.
The council allowing us a seat is no different than EU allowing slovenia a seat. You DON'T have as much power and say as others.

Without going too far into a political debate, and what the nature of politics and dominance is, i'll instead concentrate on the part of what your trying to say that is in fact relevant to mass effect and the original point.

Your claim that the council offereing us a seat is no different than the analogy you use is quite simply wrong, firstly we're offered that seat because of the power we weild and the actions we've took, which to try and compare it to why a nation is offered a seat for simple expansion purposes is a flawed analogy.

Secondly, you claim that being offered a seat on the council in mass effect (try to remember the criteria for getting that seat in game) somehow shows that you don't have as much power and say as the other 3 members of the council, which in fact in game has not been shown, so cannot be proven.

You seem to belive alien politicians are pure and benevolent and would never f**** humans up.
there is no other way to clasify it other than naive.

Again you seem to believe you have any idea of what i believe in which is a misconception on your part.

I never said they wouldn't or that they are pure and benevolent, what i've said is much more simple than that, its that  in game its not been shown to be the case that they behave or would behave as you say they do and until its shown any suggestion that this is indeed how they are, is based on nothing more than a speculation on your part.

If there are examples of them doing so then you can rightly claim that this proves your point, without those examples you instead have to rely on how things have been presented in game and in game if they suggest that all aliens are one way until shown otherwise the simple truth is that's how they are.

If the game is trying to go for any semblance of realism, then the defautl applies untill proven otherwise. I never see humans going in the bathroom to take a ******. Does that mean I shouldn't consider they do go to the bathroom, untill the game proves me otherwise?
No.

Politics works as it does because that's how it works best. Consider it a law of the universe and survival (of the fittest). For ME to abandon that would be the same as abandoning evolution or gravity - heck, even worse.

In a game set in a fictional universe where aliens exist and we're about to be wiped from existence by a super advanced machine race that's been doing this for countless cycles, then realism has left the building.

This isn't a politics sim, its not a strategy game based on real events, so why the hell do real world politics (an issue that if done in realisticly in a game would provoke controversy and create problems with accuracy) actually apply.

They can base the politics on what we know about how politics and politicians work but they can also add things in that in our real world don't make sense or even correlate, they do not and have not followed a complete real world system of politics in mass effect and because of this they don't have to make politicians or races correspond to our own views of how politics works.

The simple fact is that in creating seperate and distinct races they can and do give each of those races their own criteria and reasoning for doing what they do, which is why we have military based turians and scientifically leaning salarians and asari known for diplomacy.

So again why should real world politics and behaviour of politicians have any bearing on how fictional characters in a fictional world behave, why should the asari share the same motivations and reasoning that humans do and if they don't then how can you claim that they would act a certain way because this is how the real world works.

Modifié par alperez, 17 août 2011 - 06:58 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

  Aliens do exist al.

[GuardianAngel470]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

  Aliens do exist al.

No, just Plants.

Also, to the topic, I tend to just post my opinion in these and then leave so here goes. I agree that the best decision is to keep the base for dozens of reasons. I agree that the choice is much too black and white and that the lines stated by Shepard as a rationale for destroying the base are idiotic and naive.

But I always blow it up. Every. Single. Time. About 15 times to be exact. Why? The Illusive Man. Samara, Mordin, and many others voice better for my Shepard than Shepard did my reasons for destroying the base. To paraphrase Samara, "TIM believes he has the wisdom to utilize it. He does not."

I believe that no matter how much potential benefit there is to keeping the base, from honoring the dead to learning about the Reapers to proving their existance the potential for harm were it to fall into one single man's clutches is far greater.

That's my stance, has been since launch day, January 26, 2010. Or rather, January 27, 2010 when I actually reached the choice. Semantics.

EDIT: You can disagree, that's your right, but the chances of me changing my mind are virtually nonexistant.

I do congratulate you all for making it to 120+ pages of constructive discourse about this topic. Well done.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 17 août 2011 - 08:29 .