3618 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...



Truthfully, I'm not sure that it's less or more in comparison to other species, but it is clearly insufficient. This also goes hand in hand with when Anderson says that he feels like he's just smacking his head up against a wall, and even how casually the other Councillor's start mentioning capital punishment in regards to Shephard's 'ties' with the human representative (or his top advisor) just standing there.

If the others don't have access to it then them denying us access isn't us being treated as non equals but basically policy though, whether its insufficient isn't the issue, its whether or not we're asking for something more than the others have and being denied it for whatever reason imo.

As for Anderson personally i always took his comment to be more about his own unsuitability for the job rather than any slight being put towards humanity, i could of course be wrong but thats how it seemed to me at the time.

Can't remember the capital punishment part though, what was the context that part was said in?

[KnightofPhoenix]

SalsaDMA wrote...
It's almost as if they disregarded the novels implications.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing, imo.
As long as they know what they are doing in ME3, and signs so far worry me.

As long as TIM remains more or less reasonable and they give us the option to continue his work personally, I'll be fine with it, even if he has to die (which I may prefer depending on the situation).

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Logic proves it. Power is the product of size, strength and influence. Humans are the new kids on the block.

Considering the reasons why we actually get our seat on the council the only part of what you state above thats actually true is the fact that we're the newest member, which again though doesn't prove the original point which is that we're somehow being treated as lesser than the other races.

Logic proves nothing without the facts to back it up, in the case of us being treated as lesser or having restrictions put on our influence, the facts simply don't back up the claim.

I haven't seen the Council do ANYTHING that doesn't benefit them directly, even at the expense of others.

So what exactly have the council did that benefits them directly and remember the context you put forward, its to benefit there species over another one, which unless you can show examples of is basically just conjecture.

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.

Its not a law of the universe and nothing like it, to compare writiing a political system and using whatever rules you decide to use for that system, even though they go against real world rules as being the same as abandoing gravity or evolution, is a completely ridicolous argument.

The simple fact is that its not an accurate portrayal of our own political system in any way,shape or form, there are similarities but thats as far as it goes, the created a system for the universe its set in and the only rules it needs to apply are ones relevant to that universe.

So when creating that system which again is not an accurate or even supposed to be an accurate portrayal of our own, they can and do have politicians behave in any way they wish, they don't have to follow our own specifics of what politics is simply because thats not what they're trying to show.

We have humanity as a single race led by a single government, a council made up of originally the 3 most powerful now four most powerful factions and yet despite this you think they're following our own views of how politics works.

I'll say this once again, this is not a political sim, things don't have to follow identically the way things work in the real world, if they decide to portray a race as completely altruistic they can and as long as this is established in the universe they've created then they are breaking no laws of that universe.

To suggest that they are following the same rules our own politics follows and if they don't then they're breaking rules is simply wrong.

BS. You cannot argue realism and believabiltiy away on the grounds that SOME fantastical elements exist.
Politics and power gaes not working like politics and power games is like hot ice - stupid.

Of course you can, the mere fact that fantastical elements exist show that the world created is not an accurate portrayal of the world we live in, it is in fact a fictional universe so how they portray things in that universe only have to follow the pattern they themselves create.

As for your last sentence it makese no sense at all, so i'm guessing you mistyped.

Modifié par alperez, 18 août 2011 - 11:11 .

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...
If the others don't have access to it then them denying us access isn't us being treated as non equals but basically policy though, whether its insufficient isn't the issue, its whether or not we're asking for something more than the others have and being denied it for whatever reason imo.

While true, it was more this tidbit plus other tidbits that when counted together, made me feel like we were at least slightly ostracized. In other words, each individual portion wasn't by themselves enough to make me think we were the red headed bastard stepchild.

alperez wrote...
Can't remember the capital punishment part though, what was the context that part was said in?

To paraphrase: "You're working with Cerberus - an avowed enemy of the council - which is a capital offense." The Asari says it and it's the line that causes Councillor/Admiral Anderson to step in and say words to the effect that he wouldn't let this 'whitewash continue.'

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Logic proves it. Power is the product of size, strength and influence. Humans are the new kids on the block.

Considering the reasons why we actually get our seat on the council the only part of what you state above thats actually true is the fact that we're the newest member, which again though doesn't prove the original point which is that we're somehow being treated as lesser than the other races.

Logic proves nothing without the facts to back it up, in the case of us being treated as lesser or having restrictions put on our influence, the facts simply don't back up the claim.

Logic proves everything.
We have a smaller population and territory, our economy is struggling to keep the colonies going.
I'm talking about the actual power/influence humans have.

I haven't seen the Council do ANYTHING that doesn't benefit them directly, even at the expense of others.

So what exactly have the council did that benefits them directly and remember the context you put forward, its to benefit there species over another one, which unless you can show examples of is basically just conjecture.

Of the top of my head? Krogan, Krogan, Rachnii

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.

Its not a law of the universe and nothing like it, to compare writiing a political system and using whatever rules you decide to use for that system, even though they go against real world rules as being the same as abandoing gravity or evolution, is a completely ridicolous argument.

Survival of the fittest. Any race that doesn't look out after it's own interest will never survive as a power agaisnt competitors. Basics of evolution. The political arena is the exentsion of the same.
You have to look after yourself - no one else will.

I'll say this once again, this is not a political sim, things don't have to follow identically the way things work in the real world, if they decide to portray a race as completely altruistic they can and as long as this is established in the universe they've created then they are breaking no laws of that universe.

If they make a compeltely alturistic race, but fail to portray the consequences of that alturism, then they fail.

BS. You cannot argue realism and believabiltiy away on the grounds that SOME fantastical elements exist.
Politics and power games not working like politics and power games is like hot ice - stupid.

Of course you can, the mere fact that fantastical elements exist show that the world created is not an accurate portrayal of the world we live in, it is in fact a fictional universe so how they portray things in that universe only have to follow the pattern they themselves create.

As for your last sentence it makese no sense at all, so i'm guessing you mistyped.

No, you cna't.
It's one think to take a few liberites with some physical laws (for example to accomodate FTL), it's a compeltely other things to f**** up logical behavior. ME universe accepts evolution as a mechanics. Survival of the fittest.

Super-benevolent races who don't denfed their interests are therofore rubbish.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 août 2011 - 07:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

alperez wrote...
Considering the reasons why we actually get our seat on the council the only part of what you state above thats actually true is the fact that we're the newest member, which again though doesn't prove the original point which is that we're somehow being treated as lesser than the other races.

Logic proves nothing without the facts to back it up, in the case of us being treated as lesser or having restrictions put on our influence, the facts simply don't back up the claim.

The Farixen treaty is the most ovious restriction on human power.

Another is the Council's refusal to protect any human colony in the Skyllian Verge. While they have sound reasons, their policy of "we don't care" is certainly an informal pressure on human expansion in the only undevelopped and under colonzied part of the known galaxy at best. At worst, a deliberate message of telling humans that their colonial expansionism is not welcome.  

This is especially evident, when not pirates, but Geth attacked human colonies. Geth who never left the Veil in 300 years. Think about it. Would the Council have been as inactive if those Geth attacked the Turians? No the Turians would have retaliated full force, they would not have cared about the Terminus systems.
But they did not bother to send even the most basic kind of support.

So what exactly have the council did that benefits them directly and remember the context you put forward, its to benefit there species over another one, which unless you can show examples of is basically just conjecture.

The Krogans, and while yes they had the context to justify it, as Mordin said the Council treated the Krogans as weapons. They gave them tech, but did not allow them to develop a culture with it. Why? Obviously they wanted
savage warriors and not a civilized power.

It's not clear whether what they did was deliberate malevolence or just a mistake. I think it's both. But after the Krogan Rebellions, it's evident that the Council did nothing to even help the Krogans, and kept plaguing them wth the genophage. What they should have done is support a leader like Wrex a long time ago. But they didn't.  Why?
Honestly because i think they are afraid of the Krogans. Turians specifically, whose position in the Council is based primarily on its military. The Krogans can stand face to face against the Turians, were it not for Salarian tech.

Their policy towards the Batarians sounds like political manipulation to me. They wanted to bring humanity, which demonstrated considerable prowess and resilience, under their wing, so they gave them lands that Batarians, whom were a Council race, considered their sphere of influence. That sounds to me like they wanted the Batarians and Humans to get busy with each other and check and balance themselves. They abandonned a council race, and then abandonned humanity right after when it came to the Skyllian Verge.

Their policy with regards to the Quarians is not that altruistic either, quite the contrary, it's extremily punitive. So you have this race that was almost completely wiped out, and instead of trying to help them, the Council was like "meh, you got what was coming to you." Had they helped 3 centuries ago, maybe the quarrians would have been able to adapt to a new world.

Except:
"First discovered by the quarians at the turn of the century, Ekuna[/b]is habitable but a second-tier choice for most species. Circling an orange sun, Ekuna averages below freezing temperatures. This led development firms to colonize at the planet's equator, where the climate is tolerable for agriculture. The quarians, seeking a homeworld of their own, petitioned the Citadel Council for the right to take over Ekuna, but they had already settled a few hundred thousand quarians on the planet before approaching the Council. Seeing this occupation as an illegal act, the Council turned a deaf ear to quarian pleas and gave the world to the elcor,who could withstand the high gravity of the world far better. The quarians squatting on the planet were given one galactic standard month to leave, at which point their colonies would be bombarded. The junk left behind by the fleeing quarians clogs up portions of the landscape to this day. Non-elcor visitors to Ekuna are advised to use personal or vehicular mass effect fields to lighten the pressure, as the surface gravity will otherwise cause health and mechanical problems."

So the Council preferred to side with the Elcor, who already have worlds, against the Quarians who have no world at all at the risk of killing thousands, because they injured their pride.  Yes the Elcor might have been better suited, but let's have our priorities set right. The Quarians have no world, the Elcor do.

Another example. The Turians secrelty and illegally reverse engineered Sovereign. Why?
Isn't it an obvious arms race they are doing? If they care so much about others, why not share the technology and not just secretly reverse engineer it?

To suggest that they are following the same rules our own politics follows and if they don't then they're breaking rules is simply wrong.

Humans behave that way for several reasons. The most important one is self-interest and self-preservation. This is seemingly shared by all races. All the other races also have hierarchies, have fought wars, have expanded, have been very ruthless...etc. In other words, everything we have seen thus far is very similar to our own political state and history.

The Asari are the only ones who we can say have a very different history than humanity. And even then, obviously Asari history were inspired by parts of human history and they share a lot of similarites.

So the burden of proof is on you, to show us how the races that we have do NOT behave like humans (differences notwithstanding), and do not have self-interest in mind.

Of course you can, the mere fact that fantastical elements exist show that the world created is not an accurate portrayal of the world we live in, it is in fact a fictional universe so how they portray things in that universe only have to follow the pattern they themselves create.

This is a poor argument imo. Fantastical elements, like monsters, magic and whatnot is not related to how people behave. The people in the universe can behave in the exact same manner as we, with all these fantastical elements.

The pattern they created for this unvierse are obviously inspired by our own, and nothing I have seen as of yet points to anything *fundamentally* different from real life politics.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 août 2011 - 07:36 .

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...


While true, it was more this tidbit plus other tidbits that when counted together, made me feel like we were at least slightly ostracized. In other words, each individual portion wasn't by themselves enough to make me think we were the red headed bastard stepchild.

I never got that impression although i can see where you may get that impression from, i guess its just how you take each situation and whether or not you take the explanations for why things are a certain way on face value or when taking them as a whole does it create a particular impression to you personally.

To paraphrase: "You're working with Cerberus - an avowed enemy of the council - which is a capital offense." The Asari says it and it's the line that causes Councillor/Admiral Anderson to step in and say words to the effect that he wouldn't let this 'whitewash continue.'

Again i can see why you could take this as a sign of something although like i said above, technically what they say is true, if cerberus are classified as an avowed enemy of the council and you a spectre are working with them (whatever the justifcation) then the fact that they consider it a capital offense isn't really putting humanity at a disadvantage imo.

Anderson stepping in at that point always to me seemed more about his own relationship with Shepard than any attempt to portray this as a standing up for humanity thing also, which is why i never took it to be an example of humans being portrayed as not having the same influence as the other council races.

Plus if i remember correctly, wasn't it actually the fact that Saren was working with the geth that in the end forced the council to accept that Saren needed to be put down, which is almost the exact same situation in regards to Shepard working with cerberus.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Logic proves everything.
We have a smaller population and territory, our economy is struggling to keep the colonies going.
I'm talking about the actual power/influence humans have.

 Logic only proves things in relation to the facts presented, originally this whole part of the discussion we've been having was about restrictions placed on humanity by the council, which there aren't any. Now were moving into whether or not the size of our population, territory and economy we have means that we don't have as much power or influence on the council as we should, which is a slightly different discussion.

We can speculate that because of these factors we may not have the same power or weild the same influence as the other 3 council races, but we don't have evidence that this is in fact the case.

So instead of arguing whether or not its shown we have, we would instead be arguing whether or not humanities influence/power is directly in relation to the size of our population etc, thats a completely different discussion, one that belongs in another thread (if you wish to start one, i'll respond in there).

In game there aren't shown to be any restrictions placed on humanities seat on the council by the council, so the fact is that in so much as what's been shown this is the truth.

Of the top of my head? Krogan, Krogan, Rachnii

Again your completely forgetting the context, how does what happens to the krogan or rachi show the council races acting not as a council en masse for the entire galaxy, but as you suggested as 3 council races looking out for the interests of there own particular races above others.

Survival of the fittest. Any race that doesn't look out after it's own interest will never survive as a power agaisnt competitors. Basics of evolution. The political arena is the exentsion of the same.
You have to look after yourself - no one else will.

While these may indeed be the laws of the universe we live in, they don't have to be and aren't shown to be in mass effect, so unlike your examples of gravity and evolution, they don't actually apply to mass effect.

Using darwin to explain how things work in a fictional universe misses out on the key fundmental point, its a fictional universe darwin doesn't apply.

The writers create the rules so they don't need to agree or disagree with any rule other than the ones they themselves create, if they say that this is how it is, then real world examples don't need to agree with it because its not a real world situation.

If they make a compeltely alturistic race, but fail to portray the consequences of that alturism, then they fail.

What consequences? if the intent is to show a race as completely altruistic then thats all they need to show, they don't need to show that altruism leads to x or y, just that it exists.

BS. You cannot argue realism and believabiltiy away on the grounds that SOME fantastical elements exist.
Politics and power games not working like politics and power games is like hot ice - stupid.

No, you cna't.
It's one think to take a few liberites with some physical laws (for example to accomodate FTL), it's a compeltely other things to f**** up logical behavior. ME universe accepts evolution as a mechanics. Survival of the fittest.

Super-benevolent races who don't denfed their interests are therofore rubbish.

Seriously, in a fictional universe that's been created by writers they can take liberties with whatever the hell they like, saying FTL drives exist and super sentient machines return every 50,000 years only has to fit into the logic they themselves create, so does everything else they do.

They don't have to follow any rule or any logic other than the one they themselves created, what your suggesting is that even in this fictional universe they must also follow the logic of the real one, which is i'm sorry a ridicolous argument.

If they decide that there is a sentient machine race which returns to destroy life, they can also decide there is a super benevolent race whose only goal is to help all life for no benefit whatsoever, it doesn't have to fit into anything other than the universe and logic they themselves created.

If they can take liberties with physical laws, then they can also take liberties with perceived ones also, simply because they are not trying to recreate an exact replica of the real world and are in fact creating a fictional universe.

[alperez]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



The Farixen treaty is the most ovious restriction on human power.

Another is the Council's refusal to protect any human colony in the Skyllian Verge. While they have sound reasons, their policy of "we don't care" is certainly an informal pressure on human expansion in the only undevelopped and under colonzied part of the known galaxy at best. At worst, a deliberate message of telling humans that their colonial expansionism is not welcome.  

This is especially evident, when not pirates, but Geth attacked human colonies. Geth who never left the Veil in 300 years. Think about it. Would the Council have been as inactive if those Geth attacked the Turians? No the Turians would have retaliated full force, they would not have cared about the Terminus systems.
But they did not bother to send even the most basic kind of support.

The treaty restricts everyone though not just humanity, so it doesn't show us being treated differently which in fact was the orignal argument. The fact that it also places a restriction on the fleets of the asari and salarians, 2 of the council members while allowing the turians (for specific reasons) to build a larger fleet shows only that it restricts others apart from the turians to build up their fleet (again there are specifics for why this is the case).

When were given our seat on the council we then only face the same restrictions as the asari and salarians and since the argument is supposedly about the whole council restrictiing us specifically and since the reasons why the turians position is different are explained(specifics again) then it doesn't actually apply in the context of the council en masse placing restrictions just on humanity.

As for the Skyllian Verge the in game reasons behind this were given pre us colonising the verge which we then did anyway, if your told before you do something that you won't be supported if it goes awry, then once it does go awry trying to suggest that the council doing exactly what they said they would is in some way keeping humanity down is completely false.

We didn't have to go there in the first place, were told what would happen if it went wrong, choose to go anyway, then once it did were treated exactly how we were told we would be, ins't an example of the council keeping humanity down, its an example of humanity not listening, doing what they want and then crying foul after the event.

The geth attacks on the human colonies and whether or not the council would do the same thing if it had have been turian colonies is again not really an example of humanity being treated unfairly, for one reason in particular.

You claim if the situation had been the geth attacking turian colonies in the same place, but the fact is that's a what if, an unknown, so it can't be used to prove a known case like what we see with the human colonies.

The in game reasons why both these things are treated as they are, were not just sound but known facts before we colonised where we did, once we disregarded the warnings we're given and went ahead and did what we wished anyway, the repurcussions of those actions and the council doing what they told us they would before we took those actions in no way show the council treating us any differently to anyone else, simply because no one else took those actions and it can't be shown the council would react differently in a situation that doesn't exist.

The Krogan*snipped*

The context though was the council acting not en masse but as indvidual races only looking after their own indvidual races interests, in terms of the krogans they are acting galactically not indvidually.This is also true in both the Quarians and the Batarians case so again in the context that we were discussing it proves only that the council en masse act galactically and not that they act as indvidual races looking after their own indvidual races interests.

As for the turians, considering we ourselves also work on tech and don't share the results of that tech galactically then i'm not sure what exactly your trying to show here. If its that the Turians also do things that benefit themselves indvidually then i agree they do, but if its that they use their position on the council to benefit themselves indvidually then i'm sorry but the example doesn't show that.

Humans behave that way for several reasons. The most important one is self-interest and self-preservation. This is seemingly shared by all races. All the other races also have hierarchies, have fought wars, have expanded, have been very ruthless...etc. In other words, everything we have seen thus far is very similar to our own political state and history.

The Asari are the only ones who we can say have a very different history than humanity. And even then, obviously Asari history were inspired by parts of human history and they share a lot of similarites.

So the burden of proof is on you, to show us how the races that we have do NOT behave like humans (differences notwithstanding), and do not have self-interest in mind.

Actually in the context of the argument its not, the assertion was that politics must follow the same rules and laws in mass effect as it does in the real world, that the council en masse must follow only there own races interests and not act in a galactic way because this is the nature of politics in our own world.

Consdering there are more examples of the council acting galactically than there are of the turian council member or asari or salarian council member only putting their respective races interests first and that this is shown in game to be the case, then the burden of proof is on someone claiming that not only is this not true but that the reason its not true is that it doesn't exactly follow our own real world politics.

This is a poor argument imo. Fantastical elements, like monsters, magic and whatnot is not related to how people behave. The people in the universe can behave in the exact same manner as we, with all these fantastical elements.

The pattern they created for this unvierse are obviously inspired by our own, and nothing I have seen as of yet points to anything *fundamentally* different from real life politics.

Inspired by but not a direct representation of, thats actually the point i've been making. The fact that a fictional universe is fictional and not an exact representation of one that actually exists allows for not just fantastical elements to be in that universe but also allows for anything in that universe to follow only the rules set down in the universe itself.

While the basis of politics and how politicians work is inspired of course by our own understanding of these things, the fact is that what happens in mass effect is not supposed to be a direct replica of how things work in our own world.

LIke i've said its not a political sim, its a version of politics in a fictional universe, the same laws and reasons that bind our own politics don't apply because its not supposed to be an accurate replica. If they wish to have a politician act in a certain way and this way doesn't correspond to how politicians act in the real world it doesn't mean they are in some way breaking some universal law, they are simply portraying how politics in the fictional universe they created works.

Modifié par alperez, 19 août 2011 - 02:45 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Logic proves everything.
We have a smaller population and territory, our economy is struggling to keep the colonies going.
I'm talking about the actual power/influence humans have.

 Logic only proves things in relation to the facts presented, originally this whole part of the discussion we've been having was about restrictions placed on humanity by the council, which there aren't any. Now were moving into whether or not the size of our population, territory and economy we have means that we don't have as much power or influence on the council as we should, which is a slightly different discussion.

We can speculate that because of these factors we may not have the same power or weild the same influence as the other 3 council races, but we don't have evidence that this is in fact the case.

So instead of arguing whether or not its shown we have, we would instead be arguing whether or not humanities influence/power is directly in relation to the size of our population etc, thats a completely different discussion, one that belongs in another thread (if you wish to start one, i'll respond in there).

In game there aren't shown to be any restrictions placed on humanities seat on the council by the council, so the fact is that in so much as what's been shown this is the truth.

Why are you constantly changing the subject?
I never talked about "visible" restrictions. You were constantly babbling about them, in an effort to prove that the alien races are not a threat to humantiy and never will be. Remeber, this all started from the "human domination" bit and securing human independance and power....whihc some peopel translated into Cerberus conquering everything..and then this circus started.

You have been trying to avoid the point of the entire thread - the point that huamnity has every right to look after it's own interests. The point that there is nothing really wrong with Cerberus wanting human dominance. The point that alien races are just as likely - heck MORE likely - to betray humanity than Cerberus.

Of the top of my head? Krogan, Krogan, Rachnii

Again your completely forgetting the context, how does what happens to the krogan or rachi show the council races acting not as a council en masse for the entire galaxy, but as you suggested as 3 council races looking out for the interests of there own particular races above others.

Yes, I'm quite sure they weren't looking after their own interestest when the uplifted a race to fight dirty wars for them. Or when they unleashed the genophage on them. ...

Survival of the fittest. Any race that doesn't look out after it's own interest will never survive as a power agaisnt competitors. Basics of evolution. The political arena is the exentsion of the same.
You have to look after yourself - no one else will.

While these may indeed be the laws of the universe we live in, they don't have to be and aren't shown to be in mass effect, so unlike your examples of gravity and evolution, they don't actually apply to mass effect.

They apply EVERYWHERE.

If these don't apply in ME, then ME is worse than My Little Pony in terms of seriousness and realism.

Using darwin to explain how things work in a fictional universe misses out on the key fundmental point, its a fictional universe darwin doesn't apply.

Except that it does, because evolution is mentioned quite often within the unvierse itself.

If they make a compeltely alturistic race, but fail to portray the consequences of that alturism, then they fail.

What consequences? if the intent is to show a race as completely altruistic then thats all they need to show, they don't need to show that altruism leads to x or y, just that it exists.

They have to show the relistic consequences of actions. That's hte whole point of a believable setting.

It's like writing about a miltiary force that never scouts and follows no other tactic other than "charge" and ALWAYS wins. Stupid to the max.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 août 2011 - 05:26 .

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Why are you constantly changing the subject?
I never talked about "visible" restrictions. You were constantly babbling about them, in an effort to prove that the alien races are not a threat to humantiy and never will be. Remeber, this all started from the "human domination" bit and securing human independance and power....whihc some peopel translated into Cerberus conquering everything..and then this circus started.

You have been trying to avoid the point of the entire thread - the point that huamnity has every right to look after it's own interests. The point that there is nothing really wrong with Cerberus wanting human dominance. The point that alien races are just as likely - heck MORE likely - to betray humanity than Cerberus.

Firstly i'm not changing the subject, your trying to bring something in that wasn't in response to the original context of my response on the subject. The first response i made was in direct response to you claiming that its shown there is a bias in humanity getting a seat on the council, since that original response you've repeatedly tried to bring in human domination, politics and any other thing you can to not just prove your original argument but to cloud the issue itself.

Secondly the point of this entire thread is not humanity has every right to look after its own interests and never has been, the point of this thread was to argue the collector base choice and why that choice is made and other moral aspects of the mass effect universe. Again in trying to argue that point you've brought up every single thing from politics to human dominance which i've tried to respond to and tried to keep on topic.

So before you accuse someone of avoidance, i suggest you look in a mirror because your the biggest exponent of what your now trying to accuse me of.

Yes, I'm quite sure they weren't looking after their own interestest when the uplifted a race to fight dirty wars for them. Or when they unleashed the genophage on them. ...

Once again avoide the issue and try to cloud the response, the argument you put forward was that the council were not acting galactically but only for the benefit of their specific races, the examples you give don't prove this but still you figure if you repeat them enough, people may not understand the orginal context and agree with something you say, without knowing it had already been taken out of context.

They apply EVERYWHERE.

If these don't apply in ME, then ME is worse than My Little Pony in terms of seriousness and realism.

They don't apply everywhere, in a fictional universe the only thing that applies is the context the writers give that universe,to suggest that Mass Effect a game set in a fictional universe where fantastical things are considered commonplace needs to follow rules that don't apply to it is a ridicolous argument.

The only rules that need to apply in the universe created for mass effect are the ones the writers themselves put in it, hence why even in that universe the rules don't always apply and why people can wear ridicolous outfits in a vacuum and it have no consequence whatsoever.

Except that it does, because evolution is mentioned quite often within the unvierse itself.

I was arguing about using Darwin in reference to an argument about politics where it in fact does not apply, the mere fact that evolution is referenced in mass effect doesn't mean that with every single race they created they followed Darwins theory to explain that race's existence or motivations or that they use Darwin to explain how politics itself works which is basically what you were trying to suggest by using the theory in the first place.

They have to show the relistic consequences of actions. That's hte whole point of a believable setting.

It's like writing about a miltiary force that never scouts and follows no other tactic other than "charge" and ALWAYS wins. Stupid to the max.

Again they have to show only what they want, they need not show realistic consequences of actions and in case you missed something there are a lot of actions in mass effect that do not follow that procedure, not just because consequences of actions taken are thus far reduced to nothingness but because how realistic is it that Shepard can do the things he does in the first place.

Your analogy may make sense in the real world but in a fictional universe where almost anything the writers dream up can be deemed realistic as long as they explain it in game then it doesn't apply.

There are numerous occasions where even with these explanations we've been give we've had facepalm moments where we've gone, seriously thats your explanation and yet you try to suggest that realism even applies.

Modifié par alperez, 19 août 2011 - 07:36 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Don't give me that crap again.

I'm talking about A, you're talking about B and then you go telling me I'm off topic.
There whole clusterf**** started with the CB decision and it's consequences. There was talk of how we can't trust Cerberus and how they will attack everyone else and so forth.

At no point could you prove that they would betray you, nor could you prove they would be a great danger. But you argued that you didn't have to, because the possibiltiy is there.
Well bub, I don't have to prove the other races will side wiht the repaers and betray us either. The possiblity that they could is there.

Secondly, the Council races did act in their self-interest constantly.

Thirdly, the distribution/balance of power is a realtiy of every setting. Any setting that tries to ignore it cannot claim to be serious..ever. Politics is dirty buisness.

We have seen various aliens that acted pretty much like humans, with a wide variety of motiavtiond and urges. Asarai, Turians, Salarians - they can be motivated by greed, dominance, power and everything else just as much as any human. Competition and evolution are alive in well in the ME universe too.

Your whole argument pans on the idea that the ME universe is different and that it works differenlty, despite it being painfully obvious it doesn't.

[Arijharn]

I'm of the opinion that the writers and development team for ME are trying to portray the universe as being realistically motivated, to which case I would infer a deal of real world-esque political motivation exists and has been seen to exist (the dirty business of assassinating and replacing a pope to be more partial to alien species to better foster inter-species support in the event of a successive alien invasion immediately springs to mind).

[Reever]

Didn´t think this is worth making a new thread (if there isn´t one already...), but I´d like to post this here (it most likely has already been posted, but in that case, just ignore me ):
www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/872833-mass-effect-3-hands-on-preview-and-interview-a-moral-war

GC:
One of the things we’re worried about
is that we made what we believed to be a morally sound decision about
what to do with the geth at the end of Mass Effect 2. But as far as the
game is concerned we got awarded renegade points for the decision. And
now we’re worried everyone is going to think we’re evil when the plot
point gets raised again.




MG: So right now we’re
getting into that whole, ‘depending on how your moral compass works’ and
moral relativity. There are some choices in Mass Effect which appear
morally correct to some people but not others, and to feed into Mass
Effect 3 we have a lot of situations where there’s not really, in a lot
of cases, a really good or bad choice in terms of morality. There’s just
varying shades of grey, with varying different consequences. There’s
always going to be sacrifices and in Mass Effect 3 that comes out.Speaking
to your exact point there I don’t think you have much to worry about in
Mass Effect 3. They will know your choice, but you won’t necessarily be
made to feel you made the wrong choice.

So, varying shaded of grey. So, will being Paragon or Renegade make a difference? (regarding the big question it will make one of course, if you for example let all aliens die =D)

It also seems the Geth decision won´t be that big at all...at least not morally. Militarily it could be something else...

[Kaiser Shepard]

Seboist wrote...

That's definitely the one.

I must say that I'm almost as curious as to the outcomes of the Rawlings data and Overlord missions in ME3 as I am with the CB. Those data packets from Overlord would also fit the bill of being innocuous..... if they have purpose beyond being for achievement grinding that is.

I don't really see Overlord mattering much, at least so far as your choices go; David or no David, Cerberus still gains control over a small legion of geth in the end, with perhaps only a line or two differing depending on your end-choice. No way in hell are those data packets going to matter even a little bit.

Were it up to me, Shepard would've immediately killed Archer after dealing with his brother. And then probably David himself as well, just in case. I don't particularly like to leave loose ends when not necessary.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 20 août 2011 - 06:11 .

[TMA LIVE]

If Cerberus is working for the Reapers, then you just gave them a tool to control a large army of Geth, and any technology involving VI's and networks. If you gave them David.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 20 août 2011 - 06:16 .

[TMA LIVE]

Then again, like Kaiser said, it probably wouldn't matter in the end, since if Cerberus did get that power, and was working for the Reapers, we'd be dead. Since it would destroy any chance to fight back. So I guess something's going to happen to hold Cerberus back, if you gave them David.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 20 août 2011 - 06:28 .

[alperez]

Lotion seriously you really need to take a chill pill and get a grip on yourself, your arguing with so many different people that you can't even remember the specifics of those arguments.

1. You went off topic and accused me of doing so, we were discussing a particular thing, not cerberus we had moved past that and were talking directly in relation of the council and the 3 alien council members in particular.

2. During this particular part of the topic, you brough up an analogy comparing humanities role in mass effect to be the same as Croatia and Slovenias role in the eu, when i then brought up the fact that the analogy was flawed because unlike Croatia and slovenia, humanity didn't have restrictions placed upon them getting a seat on the council, you disagreed.

3. It was at this point you went off topic, started discussing the nature of power and dominance and despite me trying to bring you back on to the original topic, continued on this line and then accused me of going off topic.

So try and get your facts straight about why and who it was who went off topic in this discussion.

In terms of the council acting in their own self interests again your claim was that the council acted only in the interests of their own specific races, that the turian councillor only looked out for turian interests etc.

I asked for proof of this and the examples you gave where of the council acting en masse for the galactic good and not examples of what you claimed they were.

Balance of power was not the discussion we were having, it was however something you tried to bring into the discussion to prove your original point that we had restrictions placed upon us, rather than show evidence of this, instead you continually brought up balance of power as if this somehow proved what you claimed which it didn't.

Just because certain aliens share certain human qualities does not mean they also share every single human motivation, that's what my point has been and one you continually dispute by saying they must all share the exact same goals and motivations of humans, because that's how the real world exists.

Lastly my point about the universe in mass effect working differently has always been the mere fact that things in that universe don't follow exactly the same rules of our own means that they can and do pick and choose which elements to follow and which not to.

The fact that the universe has things in it that actually don't even make sense in that universe itself or the explantion of doesn't always ring true is proof of this, so it they can be liberal with physical laws, mechanical laws then they can also be liberal with political ones, which you claim they cannot because it breaks the laws of not the mass effect universe but our own real world.

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...

I'm of the opinion that the writers and development team for ME are trying to portray the universe as being realistically motivated, to which case I would infer a deal of real world-esque political motivation exists and has been seen to exist (the dirty business of assassinating and replacing a pope to be more partial to alien species to better foster inter-species support in the event of a successive alien invasion immediately springs to mind).

I'm not arguing the intent is to portray it as realistic as possible, just the fact that its not an exact replica, where things don't fit into either the storyline or in the context they wish to put across rather than be tied down to real world explantions they have leeway because the universe is not real world but fitctional.

SImply put if the game was set on earth at a time either in our own history or present then the politics and was supposed to accurately represent that time and place then they use may need to conform exactly to the political structures we know, so going against those structures would immediately result in game breaking moments.

Setting the game in a fictional universe sometime in the future allows for them to take whatever parts of the political structure they wish and use it however they wish, so as long as they explain it in game it doesn't result in a game breaking moment.

The politics they use and the way politicians act can be inspired by our own understanding of how politics works, but it doesn't have nor is it an exact replica of how our politics works, so while there are numerous similarities there are also discrepancies.

My point was that its because of these discrepancies they can and do use the politics in game to be the politics that fits into the story structure they want, why races all are united under singlular leaderships and can act as one even though we know that in our own political structure this is something that is untrue.

Which is also why they can because they are trying to show each race as different give a particular race different motivations for why they do something and not just have each race follow human motivations and reasoning in their actions.

Modifié par alperez, 20 août 2011 - 10:51 .

[Arijharn]

I don't agree, namely if they try to make an otherwise realistic setting, then a certain amount (however translated into the setting) of realistic reactions and motivations must therefore come into it, otherwise there is no point in doing so.

[Lotion Soronarr]

alperez wrote...

Lotion seriously you really need to take a chill pill and get a grip on yourself, your arguing with so many different people that you can't even remember the specifics of those arguments.

1. You went off topic and accused me of doing so, we were discussing a particular thing, not cerberus we had moved past that and were talking directly in relation of the council and the 3 alien council members in particular.

No. I didn't go off-topic. You were talking about visible limitations, I was talking about practical (below-the-table) ones.

2. During this particular part of the topic, you brough up an analogy comparing humanities role in mass effect to be the same as Croatia and Slovenias role in the eu, when i then brought up the fact that the analogy was flawed because unlike Croatia and slovenia, humanity didn't have restrictions placed upon them getting a seat on the council, you disagreed.

No. Because that's not what I was talking about. While countries do get restrictions placed before they can join, the point was what happens AFTER they join. That even if on paper all the countries in the EU should be equal, they are not.

3. It was at this point you went off topic, started discussing the nature of power and dominance and despite me trying to bring you back on to the original topic, continued on this line and then accused me of going off topic.

I didn't go off-topic. It's you who tried to forcibly discuss just one (limited) aspect of political power in an union, and now cry foul whne hte conversation shift in a direction you're not comfortable with.

So try and get your facts straight about why and who it was who went off topic in this discussion.

I have. Did you?

In terms of the council acting in their own self interests again your claim was that the council acted only in the interests of their own specific races, that the turian councillor only looked out for turian interests etc.

I asked for proof of this and the examples you gave where of the council acting en masse for the galactic good and not examples of what you claimed they were.

Orly? I disagree. They were saving their own butts.

Balance of power was not the discussion we were having, it was however something you tried to bring into the discussion to prove your original point that we had restrictions placed upon us, rather than show evidence of this, instead you continually brought up balance of power as if this somehow proved what you claimed which it didn't.

Wut? That was never my original point. You obviously cannto read. I don't think we're talking about the smaek kind of restrictions at all.

Just because certain aliens share certain human qualities does not mean they also share every single human motivation, that's what my point has been and one you continually dispute by saying they must all share the exact same goals and motivations of humans, because that's how the real world exists.

Except we've SEEN them share very human motivatons, so you have been proven wrong.

Lastly my point about the universe in mass effect working differently has always been the mere fact that things in that universe don't follow exactly the same rules of our own means that they can and do pick and choose which elements to follow and which not to.

The fact that the universe has things in it that actually don't even make sense in that universe itself or the explantion of doesn't always ring true is proof of this, so it they can be liberal with physical laws, mechanical laws then they can also be liberal with political ones, which you claim they cannot because it breaks the laws of not the mass effect universe but our own real world.

No, they cna't be liberal with everything if it clashes with the already established. Everything they shown so far supports what I've said. We have proof of alians both acing like human, sharing same motications, having same weakneses - we seen evolution at works, we seen the dirty political arena. NOTIHNG suggest otherwise.

[SalsaDMA]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's definitely the one.

I must say that I'm almost as curious as to the outcomes of the Rawlings data and Overlord missions in ME3 as I am with the CB. Those data packets from Overlord would also fit the bill of being innocuous..... if they have purpose beyond being for achievement grinding that is.

I don't really see Overlord mattering much, at least so far as your choices go; David or no David, Cerberus still gains control over a small legion of geth in the end, with perhaps only a line or two differing depending on your end-choice. No way in hell are those data packets going to matter even a little bit.

Were it up to me, Shepard would've immediately killed Archer after dealing with his brother. And then probably David himself as well, just in case. I don't particularly like to leave loose ends when not necessary.

I never understood why there wasn't an option of just putting a bullet to the forehead of them both. It would seem the logical renegade solution to ensure the problem wouldn't arise again.

[Seboist]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's definitely the one.

I must say that I'm almost as curious as to the outcomes of the Rawlings data and Overlord missions in ME3 as I am with the CB. Those data packets from Overlord would also fit the bill of being innocuous..... if they have purpose beyond being for achievement grinding that is.

I don't really see Overlord mattering much, at least so far as your choices go; David or no David, Cerberus still gains control over a small legion of geth in the end, with perhaps only a line or two differing depending on your end-choice. No way in hell are those data packets going to matter even a little bit.

Were it up to me, Shepard would've immediately killed Archer after dealing with his brother. And then probably David himself as well, just in case. I don't particularly like to leave loose ends when not necessary.

I never understood why there wasn't an option of just putting a bullet to the forehead of them both. It would seem the logical renegade solution to ensure the problem wouldn't arise again.

That can sort of be done in the case of Dr. Wayne and Corporal Toombs where killing them both is the ideal pro-Cerberus outcome.

[Arijharn]

While that's true, I tend to trust that the good Doctor isn't going to just be a blabber mouth, but Corporal Toombs is a loose cannon, so I consider eliminating him to be the 'most' prudent.

It's far easier imo to train someone up on the correct usage of a firearm I think than putting someone else through a science degree etc, etc. For all I know, Dr. Wayne could actually be very highly qualified and thus potentially needed for other projects.

[Seboist]

Arijharn wrote...

While that's true, I tend to trust that the good Doctor isn't going to just be a blabber mouth, but Corporal Toombs is a loose cannon, so I consider eliminating him to be the 'most' prudent.

It's far easier imo to train someone up on the correct usage of a firearm I think than putting someone else through a science degree etc, etc. For all I know, Dr. Wayne could actually be very highly qualified and thus potentially needed for other projects.

AFAIK he just ends up getting arrested and apparently nothing is said of what happens to him in ME2.

Another case of a Renegade choice leading into a black hole of nothing...