649 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

tjzsf wrote...

No, it's still pretty black and white depending on how deeply entrenched that culture is.

Everyone hates the batarian leadership for being a bunch of crybabies when they tried to bully humanity and humanity hit them back, and for that slavery thing, and for sponsoring terrorist attacks against humanity, and for blaming humans for something that's their own fault, and for withdrawing from the Council when they didn't get their way. That much is black and white.

The only point of contention is whether the non-leadership believe the same. If you somehow topple the regime and let the lower castes rule, and they mellow out and integrate with galactic society again, then sure, I'll accept that my opinion of batarians need reevaluation.

If, however, they keep things the same like what normally happens when you overthrow a government, then no, eff those batarians.

You missed the point. The point is everyone who say they hate all batarians hate specific groups. You can't hate all Batarians for something that isn't the fault of the Majority. Hell you basically just agreed it isn't black and white.

[SandTrout]

Sajuro wrote...

I hate to tell you, but if there is a square mile of land a human has walked on, chances are at least one person was murdered there and the history of mankind is riddled with atrocities, like Fallout says "war... war never changes"

You should remember that people only consider many events in history as 'attrocities' because our culture has developed so that a higher value is placed on human life than any other time in our history. The fact that we consider those things as atrocious is evidence in itself that our culture has changed.

[Sisterofshane]

1136342t54 wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

No, it's still pretty black and white depending on how deeply entrenched that culture is.

Everyone hates the batarian leadership for being a bunch of crybabies when they tried to bully humanity and humanity hit them back, and for that slavery thing, and for sponsoring terrorist attacks against humanity, and for blaming humans for something that's their own fault, and for withdrawing from the Council when they didn't get their way. That much is black and white.

The only point of contention is whether the non-leadership believe the same. If you somehow topple the regime and let the lower castes rule, and they mellow out and integrate with galactic society again, then sure, I'll accept that my opinion of batarians need reevaluation.

If, however, they keep things the same like what normally happens when you overthrow a government, then no, eff those batarians.

You missed the point. The point is everyone who say they hate all batarians hate specific groups. You can't hate all Batarians for something that isn't the fault of the Majority. Hell you basically just agreed it isn't black and white.

The problem with the above arguments is that it assumes that every Batarian we have met operates under the consent of the hegemony.  They do not -- because the Hegemony has withdrawn into itself and forbidden it's citizens to leave their space, we can safely assume that any batarian we meet outside of their space is an ex-patriot of the hegemony.  And a whole lot of them are still a bunch of prejudiced jerks.  What they prove is that it is possible to live outside of the Hegemony ( and it doesn't look like they are stopped from leaving or hunted down once they have left).  So any actions taken by the Hegemony (such as the sponsored raid on Elysium) are what those Batarians who have not left the Hegemony believe in.

Does any of this mean that we should "hate" all Batarians?  No.  They are not all responsible for the actions their governments take.  Should we be wary of the ones we meet?  Probably, because we know that a majority of their culture involves their "disdain" for humans.

And as for the OP, I don't like them because they are a one-dimensional species.  Like the Hanar or the Elcor, but with less uniqueness.  To me, all Batarians look the same (ugly spider-bat-pigs), they all sound the same (did they have the same VA or what?), and most of them have the same personality (generally grumpy).  The only purpose they have served within the story is to add a little "layer" of backstory to Shepard (through chosen backgrounds).

[Medhia Nox]

@SandTrout: And what acts of violence did these mythical less civilized people not find atrocious that we do so today?

That the world is any more civilized today is an erroneous claim.

Especially given the absolute truth that all modern moral thought (that which would dictate an atrocity) was already likely written by some philosopher (whether secular or religious) thousands of years ago.

Just because you're a slave to debt and not some master's whip does not mean you have been emancipated. The same goes with war... the greatest atrocities against man have been done in the modern age:

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity" - Albert Einstein

There is no reason to believe that humanities' future will be any different.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:46 .

[Xilizhra]

Just because you're a slave to debt and not some master's whip does not mean you have been emancipated. The same goes with war... the greatest atrocities against man have been done in the modern age:

I think that has more to do with technology and how it can increase the scale of atrocious efforts. The human mind doesn't see much intuitive difference in killing a hundred people vs. killing a million (I believe we can biologically only really see 25 people at a time as people).

[Sisterofshane]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SandTrout: And what acts of violence did these mythical less civilized people not find atrocious that we do so today?

That the world is any more civilized today is an erroneous claim.

Especially given the absolute truth that all modern moral thought (that which would dictate an atrocity) was already likely written by some philosopher (whether secular or religious) thousands of years ago.

Just because you're a slave to debt and not some master's whip does not mean you have been emancipated. The same goes with war... the greatest atrocities against man have been done in the modern age:

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity" - Albert Einstein

There is no reason to believe that humanities' future will be any different.

Not all "moral" thought was written thousands of years ago.  In fact, most of it was written just a few hundred years ago, in an age of "enlightenment".

And we are most certainly more civilized then we were.  Take your "debt" example.  Back when they were founding the American colonies, many Europeans were sent to prison as "debters" - and we're not talking about prisons like today.  Back then you had no rights if you were in prison.  You were essentially a "slave".

Violence will always be violence.  Whether it occured fifty-thousand years ago or if it happens one-hundred years in the future.   But the fact that violence still exists does not make us as "barbaric" as we once were.

[SandTrout]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SandTrout: And what acts of violence did these mythical less civilized people not find atrocious that we do so today?

That the world is any more civilized today is an erroneous claim.

Check my wording. I said that our culture has changed, not that we are more civilized. As for examples: Razing of many cities for the sake of looting them and raping the occupansts (Huns, Mongols, Alexander the Great, Persians, Romans, Greeks, English, French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese). Most of the razing included the slaughter of a great number of the cities' citizens as well. This would be considered an attrocity by modern western culture, while at the time, it was considered good practice for varrious reasons.

Especially given the absolute truth that all modern moral thought (that which would dictate an atrocity) was already likely written by some philosopher (whether secular or religious) thousands of years ago.

Just because a philosophy existed at the time does not mean that it was embraced by the culture surrounding it. Neo-Godwins exist in modern society, but they are not considered a significant part of western culture. Also, there are philosophies that have developed and taken root in just the past couple of centuries such as communism and laissez faire captialism.

Just because you're a slave to debt and not some master's whip does not mean you have been emancipated.

If that debt was freely entered into by the debtor, then they are indeed 'free'. Freedom includes the possibility of making a bad decission.

The same goes with war... the greatest atrocities against man have been done in the modern age:

And are generally considered the evil work of maniacs that managed to get too much power. Also, the number of people is far larger in the modern age than ever before. There have been events in history which killed a larger percentage of the human population. The examples above were considered acceptable.

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity" - Albert Einstein

There is no reason to believe that humanities' future will be any different.

The fact that technology has advnaced in such a degree is irrelevant in the discussion of cultural values.

[sponge56]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@SandTrout: And what acts of violence did these mythical less civilized people not find atrocious that we do so today?

That the world is any more civilized today is an erroneous claim.

Especially given the absolute truth that all modern moral thought (that which would dictate an atrocity) was already likely written by some philosopher (whether secular or religious) thousands of years ago.

Just because you're a slave to debt and not some master's whip does not mean you have been emancipated. The same goes with war... the greatest atrocities against man have been done in the modern age:

"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity" - Albert Einstein

There is no reason to believe that humanities' future will be any different.

Well the Romans used to butcher and kill everyone when they took a city, not doing so usually led to people calling them very kind.    Isnt that an example of how culture has moved on?  The fact that we are preety pissed off if someone invades us, not thanking them that they havent butchered everyone as per the norm.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

The Batarians are my second favorite race, second only to the mighty Krogan.

[Homey C-Dawg]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

The Batarians are my second favorite race, second only to the mighty Krogan.

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out that if it wern't for the genophage, the krogan would have completely wiped out (or maybe enslaved) every race in the galaxy. Without that handycap, they are far more dangerous and racist than batarians (most of them openly admit hating all aliens).

I suspect the reason we like them so much more than batarians is because they have funny personalities, because they are neutered, because they don't have a grudge specifically against humans, and because of Wrex's badassness. We simply know them and their plight more intimately.

I feel like a well developed batarian squadmate would drastically change many peoples opinions of them simply by fleshing out the species through dialog (plus, how cool would it be for colonist Shepard to hash it out with the batarian about Mindoir).

[Lexa_]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

The Batarians are my second favorite race, second only to the mighty Krogan.

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out that if it wern't for the genophage, the krogan would have completely wiped out (or maybe enslaved) every race in the galaxy. Without that handycap, they are far more dangerous and racist than batarians (most of them openly admit hating all aliens).

I suspect the reason we like them so much more than batarians is because they have funny personalities, because they are neutered, because they don't have a grudge specifically against humans, and because of Wrex's badassness. We simply know them and their plight more intimately.

I feel like a well developed batarian squadmate would drastically change many peoples opinions of them simply by fleshing out the species through dialog (plus, how cool would it be for colonist Shepard to hash it out with the batarian about Mindoir).

That would be the first time I tell a "member" to leave my ship.
And yes, the only difference is, you know Wrex and you know Grunt. In both games you learn  more and more about the Krogans. Therefor, you know how to deal with them and there are some you can trust. But nothing  like that is given when it comes to Batarians. So much hate and I don't think it will change with ME 3, Arrival made that clear.

[Homey C-Dawg]

Lexa_ wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

The Batarians are my second favorite race, second only to the mighty Krogan.

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out that if it wern't for the genophage, the krogan would have completely wiped out (or maybe enslaved) every race in the galaxy. Without that handycap, they are far more dangerous and racist than batarians (most of them openly admit hating all aliens).

I suspect the reason we like them so much more than batarians is because they have funny personalities, because they are neutered, because they don't have a grudge specifically against humans, and because of Wrex's badassness. We simply know them and their plight more intimately.

I feel like a well developed batarian squadmate would drastically change many peoples opinions of them simply by fleshing out the species through dialog (plus, how cool would it be for colonist Shepard to hash it out with the batarian about Mindoir).

That would be the first time I tell a "member" to leave my ship.
And yes, the only difference is, you know Wrex and you know Grunt. In both games you learn  more and more about the Krogans. Therefor, you know how to deal with them and there are some you can trust. But nothing  like that is given when it comes to Batarians. So much hate and I don't think it will change with ME 3, Arrival made that clear.

How much we actually know about the batarians seems to be a major point in this thread. I still think a squady would flesh them out into less one dimentional characters, creating more understanding, resulting in more acceptance of their species (perhaps he is party of a hegemony resistance group or something). It might not affect your opinion or mine, but it would be good for the development of the species.

I do, however, highly support the idea that if there was a batarian squadmate, the player should indeed be given the option to either recruit him or shoot him in the head. It's all about player choices after all.

[General Hammer]

For me anyway, it boils down to roleplaying. All the backgrounds were somehow negativly affected by batarians. ruthless on torfan solesurvivor and the slavers and war hero fights them on Elysium. so every Shepard backstory has SOMETHING against batarians.

[ThePwener]

General Hammer wrote...

For me anyway, it boils down to roleplaying. All the backgrounds were somehow negativly affected by batarians. ruthless on torfan solesurvivor and the slavers and war hero fights them on Elysium. so every Shepard backstory has SOMETHING against batarians.

It's a freaking conspiracy! You heard it here first.... and in every thread Zulu posted!

[HiroVoid]

I'm pretty sure an Earth-born Sole Survivor has no personal agenda against Batarians. Thresher maws on the other hand...

[Swimming Ferret]

I find it funny how one of the main reasons people hate Batarians is the slavery thing; good thing us humans haven't done that one before, eh?

That provides an easy example; for so long slavery was accepted and allowed in our culture.
Who's to say the Batarians won't do what humans did; that is abolish it?
It won't happen over night though. It took years for humans to finally abolish it and there was a good civil war about it. Batarians could slowly start reevaluating themselves. Just because the Batarians in power encourage it, we have no idea what the middle-men and civilians feel about it. Who knows, maybe in a few centuries or less Batarians could become slave free? Simply because the higher ups encourage it- most likely due to saving money on labour- the majority could disapprove of it, but aren't in any position to object.

[ThePwener]

Swimming Ferret wrote...

I find it funny how one of the main reasons people hate Batarians is the slavery thing; good thing us humans haven't done that one before, eh?

You just compared the era when we did it with the era ME takes place in. I won't even begin to explain how wrong you are.

[Swimming Ferret]

ThePwener wrote...

Swimming Ferret wrote...

I find it funny how one of the main reasons people hate Batarians is the slavery thing; good thing us humans haven't done that one before, eh?

You just compared the era when we did it with the era ME takes place in. I won't even begin to explain how wrong you are.

Oh please, don't be stupid. Era doesn't matter, slavery is slavery.

[Weskerr]

HiroVoid wrote...

I'm pretty sure an Earth-born Sole Survivor has no personal agenda against Batarians. Thresher maws on the other hand...

I have a few things to say about Sole Survivor Shepard and Thresher Maws. You would think that Shepard hates Cerberus for setting a Thresher Maw on his unit and killing all but himself and another marine, and then for torturing that other marine. He doesn't.  In fact, he has no response whatsoever (good, bad, or neutral) towards Cerberus regarding the TM attack. *Slaps BioWare's hand* Bad BioWare! Very, very bad!

You would also think that Sole Survivor Shepard would have some reaction to ecountering another Thresher Maw (which he does many times in ME1 and once in ME2). He has none. *Shakes head at BioWare*

Last thing is, how is it that Shepard is able to bring down a Thresher Maw with two squadmates in Grunt's LM, but can't bring one down with 50 marines? *Looks cluelessly at BioWare for an answer*

On topic: I agree with the opinion that BioWare wants players to dislike Batarians. This is a fictional story after all. If they wanted players to sympathize with Batarians or feel ambivalent about them, they would have created Batarian characters that are likable. The only Batarian I can think of who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder and isn't a jerk is this guy.

[ThePwener]

Weskerr wrote...

The only Batarian I can think of who doesn't have a chip on his shoulder and isn't a jerk is this guy.

Yet we still inpale his ass and smile while Shepard makes a funny joke. Tee-hee.

[SandTrout]

ThePwener wrote...

Yet we still inpale his ass and smile while Shepard makes a funny joke. Tee-hee.

Different Batarian. That was Saulki. The one that's working too hard is Cathka

[tjzsf]

1136342t54 wrote...

You missed the point. The point is everyone who say they hate all batarians hate specific groups. You can't hate all Batarians for something that isn't the fault of the Majority. Hell you basically just agreed it isn't black and white.

How do you know it's not the majority? It's pretty clearly established that slavery is part of their culture. I can hate all of them who accept that it's part of their culture instead of fighting to change it. Which, given the lack of Cerberus Daily News or Citadel Elevator News or Codex Entries or anything that implies the existence of a batarian Spartacus, leads me to the conclusion that they accept it.

If the Aztec Empire were a modern nation, I'd hate the Aztecs for being a bunch of slavers and human sacrificers. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate they are anything but, not on me to give them benefit of the doubt.

[lobi]

Swimming Ferret wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Swimming Ferret wrote...

I find it funny how one of the main reasons people hate Batarians is the slavery thing; good thing us humans haven't done that one before, eh?

You just compared the era when we did it with the era ME takes place in. I won't even begin to explain how wrong you are.

Oh please, don't be stupid. Era doesn't matter, slavery is slavery.

Unless it's indentured labour with a term that is directly tied to payment of a debt that keeps increasing with interest, interest which just happens to be the maximum amount an indentured worker gets in wages. Go Illium!

[ThePwener]

SandTrout wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Yet we still inpale his ass and smile while Shepard makes a funny joke. Tee-hee.

Different Batarian. That was Saulki. The one that's working too hard is Cathka

They all look alike!

[Swimming Ferret]

lobi wrote...


Unless it's indentured labour with a term that is directly tied to payment of a debt that keeps increasing with interest, interest which just happens to be the maximum amount an indentured worker gets in wages. Go Illium!

Funny how people aren't all hating on Asari for having that fancier slavery. :/

But then, Batarians are the Klingons for ME.

Modifié par Swimming Ferret, 13 septembre 2011 - 05:49 .