266 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyph3rX]

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 08 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[Catamantaloedis]

Silhouett3 wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

OP, what's your take on the individualist, territorial, solitary attitude of Krogans and the pure-software, data sharing Geth, are they an example of ideal militaristic fascist society too?

The Krogan are not territorial. They're expansionist. Always have been.
The Geth, are in a way, a form of direct democracy with their Consensus. But their government is important and they don't have politicians. They're robots.

Oh no Krogan are very territorial and  individualistic. Even with their own kind. I think the Codex entry about Krogan society explains it in detail.

They tend to favor their personal gain instead of the benefit of group. That's why their "clans" are constantly at war and Krogan society have no one specific leadership over all. Such a state if absolutely opposed, discouraged and punished by the militaristic fascist societies, isn't that right?

And Geth are, in principle, pure democratic society  where every view point is considered at every decision. They don't share to satisfy the demands of one goverment consisted from a smaller group of individuals, they share directly for the sake of their society.

The fact that they organize themselves into clans to which they are fanatically loyal is an argument against this supposed individualism. They only favor personal gain now, because the effects of the genophage have debilitated their governments and fractured them as a race. Regardless, I never said that Bioware loves the Krogan as they are now. Only under the strong leadership of autocratic figures do they become a favored race.

[Catamantaloedis]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

You can't seriously be telling me you think the Krogan were portrayed in a good light? What of the batarians? Their hegemony was REPEATEDLY criticised in game.

The Krogan, by the end of the game, provided that the genophage was cured, and they have the correct leaders, and their society is reformed in a better manner, are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light, even though these leaders express expansionist tendencies even before the genophage was cured. 
And we know very little about the Hegemony, and it's people. Impossible to really comment on them.

Actually we know a fair amount about the Hegemony.
- They actively engage in hostilites with the Systems Alliance and try to disrupt and antagonise them wherever possible
- They have frosty relations with council species
- Slavery is entirely acceptable
- They run under a caste system
- Numerous in-game references to people trying to escape the hegemony and slavers
- Brutal prisons (Arrival DLC shed more light on this for example)
- Implied that they are in economic crisis (Paper tiger etc). Personally I seem them as similar to North Korea.

Also Re: the Krogan, you have put a lot of prerequisites in the beginning of that sentence. More importantly even WITH all those stabilising elements its implied that they most likely try to expand once more. I concede that Wrex does say he will try diplomatic methods but if they fail you think his people won't try and overthrow him?

If his people did try to overthrow him, it will be because of the clanlike nature of their civilization, not because it is autocratic.

And this is not the point.

Can you really deny that politicians and democracy are not presented in a favorable light in this series?

I can deny it in fact. One of the biggest choices in ME1 is to save the council or let them die. You can then push for a human centric council if you wish. Conversely you can save the council because you believe that each race needs a voice etc.

I find it funny that you argue Bioware is pushing an agenda in a game based on choice where many different political, ethical and philosophical viewpoints can be championed.

Shepard can play as a human centric, power hungry would be dictator
Shepard can also be a selfless, altruistic, democratic servant of the people.
The point is that if Bioware was pushing an agenda these would not be possibilities.

The fact that you can let the Council die, and another Council is formed which is equally incompentent as the first, is proof in Bioware's distaste for representative government.

[Deuterium_Dawn]

Catamantaloedis wrote..

He actually had to leave essentially give up any hope in retaining democractic post to do what was morally correct. In the turian Hierarchy, the guy would've just done what he needed to do.

As long as it fell within the accepted tactics of the hierarchy. Remember, Primarch Victus was essentially at a dead-end with little hope of promotion until the Reapers killed everyone above him because he'd made himself unpopular with his unconventional tactics. And quite frankly that's the reality of democracies. People who don't have to answer to the general public have greater freedom of action, with which they can do good or ill. Human nature being what it is, even the best intentioned people will abuse unchecked power. And the guy didn't "abandon his post" he simply stopped caring what the polls and the news thought of him. In the aftermath of a victory over the Reapers this would probably actually make him more popular.

Modifié par Deuterium_Dawn, 08 mai 2012 - 09:59 .

[sAxMoNkI]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

You can't seriously be telling me you think the Krogan were portrayed in a good light? What of the batarians? Their hegemony was REPEATEDLY criticised in game.

The Krogan, by the end of the game, provided that the genophage was cured, and they have the correct leaders, and their society is reformed in a better manner, are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light, even though these leaders express expansionist tendencies even before the genophage was cured. 
And we know very little about the Hegemony, and it's people. Impossible to really comment on them.

Actually we know a fair amount about the Hegemony.
- They actively engage in hostilites with the Systems Alliance and try to disrupt and antagonise them wherever possible
- They have frosty relations with council species
- Slavery is entirely acceptable
- They run under a caste system
- Numerous in-game references to people trying to escape the hegemony and slavers
- Brutal prisons (Arrival DLC shed more light on this for example)
- Implied that they are in economic crisis (Paper tiger etc). Personally I seem them as similar to North Korea.

Also Re: the Krogan, you have put a lot of prerequisites in the beginning of that sentence. More importantly even WITH all those stabilising elements its implied that they most likely try to expand once more. I concede that Wrex does say he will try diplomatic methods but if they fail you think his people won't try and overthrow him?

If his people did try to overthrow him, it will be because of the clanlike nature of their civilization, not because it is autocratic.

And this is not the point.

Can you really deny that politicians and democracy are not presented in a favorable light in this series?

I can deny it in fact. One of the biggest choices in ME1 is to save the council or let them die. You can then push for a human centric council if you wish. Conversely you can save the council because you believe that each race needs a voice etc.

I find it funny that you argue Bioware is pushing an agenda in a game based on choice where many different political, ethical and philosophical viewpoints can be championed.

Shepard can play as a human centric, power hungry would be dictator
Shepard can also be a selfless, altruistic, democratic servant of the people.
The point is that if Bioware was pushing an agenda these would not be possibilities.

The fact that you can let the Council die, and another Council is formed which is equally incompentent as the first, is proof in Bioware's distaste for representative government.

Or proof that a change in leadership doesn't solve the problems left to the new politicians by their predecessors.
Or better yet that Bioware decided changing the council shouldn't have far reaching implications for the plot or change the dialogue or gameplay too much.

[Catamantaloedis]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote..

He actually had to leave essentially give up any hope in retaining democractic post to do what was morally correct. In the turian Hierarchy, the guy would've just done what he needed to do.

As long as it fell within the accepted tactics of the hierarchy. Remember, Primarch Victus was essentially at a dead-end with little hope of promotion until the Reapers killed everyone above him because he'd made himself unpopular with his unconventional tactics. And quite frankly that's the reality of democracies. People who don't have to answer to the general public have greater freedom of action, with which they can do good or ill. Human nature being what it is, even the best intentioned people will abuse unchecked power. And the guy didn't "abandon his post" he simply stopped caring what the polls and the news thought of him. In the aftermath of a victory over the Reapers this would probably actually make him more popular.

Cool story.

Based on the game, though, it's much easier to tell which system Bioware prefers.

[Wulfram]

I do think that Mass Effect does have an underlying, and likely accidental, theme of support for military dictatorships. Not so bad in ME1 as the sequels.

[Deuterium_Dawn]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote..

He actually had to leave essentially give up any hope in retaining democractic post to do what was morally correct. In the turian Hierarchy, the guy would've just done what he needed to do.

As long as it fell within the accepted tactics of the hierarchy. Remember, Primarch Victus was essentially at a dead-end with little hope of promotion until the Reapers killed everyone above him because he'd made himself unpopular with his unconventional tactics. And quite frankly that's the reality of democracies. People who don't have to answer to the general public have greater freedom of action, with which they can do good or ill. Human nature being what it is, even the best intentioned people will abuse unchecked power. And the guy didn't "abandon his post" he simply stopped caring what the polls and the news thought of him. In the aftermath of a victory over the Reapers this would probably actually make him more popular.

Cool story.

So rather than argue my point you resort to an overused meme that was terrible to begin with.

Based on the game, though, it's much easier to tell which system Bioware prefers.

Based on your heavily biased and unproven assertions.

[sAxMoNkI]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Well, at least you're not calling them racist.

"Bah, you game developers are all fascists"

[Catamantaloedis]

Wulfram wrote...

I do think that Mass Effect does have an underlying, and likely accidental, theme of support for military dictatorships. Not so bad in ME1 as the sequels.

That's all I'm saying. Even if they didn't mean for it to be there, there is not a single respectable politician from a democratic government. People constantly express their hatred for political figures. Anderson quits politics because its too dirty for them. All the politicians refuse to challenge the Reaper threat, even when its on their doorstep. The most familiar elected official sides with a terrorist organization for his own benefit.

[Chris Priestly]

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

[incinerator950]

Pretty sure Anderson quit because it felt like he was banging his head against a wall whenever he tried to do anything.

[sAxMoNkI]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

I think I love you for that comment

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 08 mai 2012 - 10:12 .

[Deuterium_Dawn]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

Help help I'm being oppressed!

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I
do think that Mass Effect does have an underlying, and likely
accidental, theme of support for military dictatorships. Not so bad in
ME1 as the sequels.

That's all I'm saying. Even if they
didn't mean for it to be there, there is not a single respectable
politician from a democratic government. People constantly express their
hatred for political figures. Anderson quits politics because its too
dirty for them. All the politicians refuse to challenge the Reaper
threat, even when its on their doorstep. The most familiar elected
official sides with a terrorist organization for his own benefit.

How many do we really meet? Our only interaction with the government of any race until the third game is through the Council, whose job is essentially to enforce the status quo and maintain the Asari-dominated balance of power. The Dalatrass is unelected and only helps Shepard when faced with the prospect of being left to fight the Reaper alone even if you later have the option to agree with her. The Primarch is an unpopular general who agrees to help only when you help him, after the Turians and everyone else left humanity to fend for themselves initially. We never meet the Asari government and our only potentially positive interaction with the Krogan government is if Wrex and Bakura are alive. Wreave is a moron.  And again Anderson didn't quit because politics were dirty or corrupt. He quit because he was a soldier and wasn't suited for it. Diplomacy requires an entirely different skillset. It's a stretch to call Udina the most familiar, the Cerberus coup arc wasn't all that great in general(and it wasn't for Udina's personal, but Earth's perceived benefit) and I'd wager they placed Udina in that spot because he was very unpopular and most people loved the chance to kill him.

And most people probably don't like at least portions of their government.  The behavior of the council and udina fits the popular perception of politicians. It doesn't reflect some kind of pro-totalitarian agenda of a game company based in a liberal western democracy.

Modifié par Deuterium_Dawn, 08 mai 2012 - 10:15 .

[Catamantaloedis]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote..

He actually had to leave essentially give up any hope in retaining democractic post to do what was morally correct. In the turian Hierarchy, the guy would've just done what he needed to do.

As long as it fell within the accepted tactics of the hierarchy. Remember, Primarch Victus was essentially at a dead-end with little hope of promotion until the Reapers killed everyone above him because he'd made himself unpopular with his unconventional tactics. And quite frankly that's the reality of democracies. People who don't have to answer to the general public have greater freedom of action, with which they can do good or ill. Human nature being what it is, even the best intentioned people will abuse unchecked power. And the guy didn't "abandon his post" he simply stopped caring what the polls and the news thought of him. In the aftermath of a victory over the Reapers this would probably actually make him more popular.

Cool story.

So rather than argue my point you resort to an overused meme that was terrible to begin with.

Based on the game, though, it's much easier to tell which system Bioware prefers.

Based on your heavily biased and unproven assertions.

You are not arguing against my points. The turian government where people earn their right to power, and use it in an autocrat's capacity, is never portrayed negaitvely. Unlike the representative governments, whose elected leaders all turn out to be cowards, liars, treacherous, or simply incompetent.

How is this not obvious?

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 08 mai 2012 - 10:07 .

[Catamantaloedis]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

How condescending. Very respectable of you.

[Chris Priestly]

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

Help help I'm being oppressed!

Bloody Mass Effect 3 peasant.

[Made Nightwing]

There is nothing inherently good about democracy, there is nothing inherently evil about a dictatorship, both are equally open to abuse. Personally I'd prefer a benign dictatorship without the current pretention of choice.

But regardless, BioWare is not interested in overthrowing governments. Everyone knows that Bungie is the only game developer hell bent on world domination.

[Draining Dragon]

On a more intelligent note:

Modifié par Draining Dragon, 08 mai 2012 - 10:13 .

[sAxMoNkI]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Deuterium_Dawn wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote..

He actually had to leave essentially give up any hope in retaining democractic post to do what was morally correct. In the turian Hierarchy, the guy would've just done what he needed to do.

As long as it fell within the accepted tactics of the hierarchy. Remember, Primarch Victus was essentially at a dead-end with little hope of promotion until the Reapers killed everyone above him because he'd made himself unpopular with his unconventional tactics. And quite frankly that's the reality of democracies. People who don't have to answer to the general public have greater freedom of action, with which they can do good or ill. Human nature being what it is, even the best intentioned people will abuse unchecked power. And the guy didn't "abandon his post" he simply stopped caring what the polls and the news thought of him. In the aftermath of a victory over the Reapers this would probably actually make him more popular.

Cool story.

So rather than argue my point you resort to an overused meme that was terrible to begin with.

Based on the game, though, it's much easier to tell which system Bioware prefers.

Based on your heavily biased and unproven assertions.

You are not arguing against my points. The turian government where people earn their right to power, and use it in an autocrat's capacity, is never portrayed negaitvely. Unlike the representative governments, whose elected leaders all turn out to be cowards, liars, treacherous, or simply incompetent.

How is this not obvious?

Because if a primarch was incompetent or a coward or  a liar he would
A) have not gotten the position to begin with
or would swiftly be replaced

Replacing leaders is inherently more difficult in a democracy short of a public revolt or majority vote of no confidence. Also there are no inbuilt safeguards in the democratic system against the qualities you mentioned.

By its nature the turian meritocracy ensures that only those of sufficient integrity ascend to the higher levels of government.

[Chris Priestly]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

How condescending. Very respectable of you.

Maybe lay off the boundless accusations and be more accepting when discredited. Respect is earned.

[Catamantaloedis]

Made Nightwing wrote...

There is nothing inherently good about democracy, there is nothing inherently evil about a dictatorship, both are equally open to abuse. Personally I'd prefer a benign dictatorship without the current pretention of choice.

But regardless, BioWare is not interested in overthrowing governments. Everyone knows that Bungie is the only game developer hell bent on world domination.

I'm making no argument against the first part of your post.

Simply pointing out that if you analyze the Mass Effect series, as you would a novel of literary merit, or an artistically motivated movie, you can easily come to the conclusion that Bioware is critiquing representative government.

[Catamantaloedis]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...
Don't know why my text never appears when I originally post it. Maybe Bioware attempting to silence me?

You don't know how to use the intarwebs and we're trying to silence you?

How condescending. Very respectable of you.

Maybe lay off the boundless accusations and be more accepting when discredited. Respect is earned.

I do not recall being discredited. 

And no one ever earns respect by being condescending. 

Any more platitudes you want to set free on us?

[Silhouett3]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

The fact that they organize themselves into clans to which they are fanatically loyal is an argument against this supposed individualism. They only favor personal gain now, because the effects of the genophage have debilitated their governments and fractured them as a race. Regardless, I never said that Bioware loves the Krogan as they are now. Only under the strong leadership of autocratic figures do they become a favored race.

You are ignoring the codex. Hell, you are ignoring the instinctive aggression displayed by almost every Krogan character. Have it your way.