68 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Okay, not worse, but just as bad. 

I, for the most part, need this for future reference. However, there's a message of value here for anyone interested.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extremism is never a good thing. Even the extreme opposite of a bad thing is just another – bad – extreme.




The parable of Samara and Morinth epitomizes this truth. Morinth may be terrible in the most chaotic-evil way, but Samara's extreme lawful-good ethics lead her to do just as much violence herself. Since the story tries downplay Samara's bad side to you as much as possible, equating her evil with Morinth's may seem like a bit much.

Think about it, though. I maintain they are closer than many would have you believe.

Anyway...




Enter ME3. We're now at war with the Reapers. This enemy fights in many different ways, but perhaps the most troubling is indoctrination: converting you to their cause through control signals or implantation. Needless to say, this compounds the danger of getting at all close to the other side. Otherwise, their method of fighting is predominantly good old-fashioned terrorism: literally, use of violence to instill terror to facilitate a political goal.

Now to the point of this thread. Terrorism spawns another weapon for its perpetrator: hysteria. You have the other side running scared, so much so that they act irrationally and can even end up fighting each other as a result.

Examples of this are scarce in the game (in retrospect, a big missed opportunity), but they do exist. After completing the mission at Sanctuary, Javik speaks of a group of people in his cycle who sacrificed all of their young in hopes that it would stop the Reapers. As one would expect, it did not work. Like Sanctuary, it only made the enemy's job easier.

More fascinating, to me at least, is the way this hysteria manifests on an out-of-game level (the game-player). In that, I rather not make an example of any indvidual or group of people, but hysteria-based rationale in general is pretty hard to miss when you're aware of it. Odds are, you'll start seeing it after you're done reading this thread.


tl;dr: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That holds true even in a conflict as dire as this.

[Related READAN: The Paradigm Shift Theory (PST) by HYR]

Go!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 mai 2013 - 01:28 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

dp.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 30 avril 2013 - 04:54 .

[Wolfva2]

Your definition of terrorism is spot on (You wouldn't be going to GovSec next month would you? Sound like the type of person who might...). But the Reapers don't use terrorism, nor terror, to achieve their goals. They use violence; that people become terrified is just a side effect. Nor are they trying to change governmental policy. They're trying to conquer governments. Which, I guess, WOULD change governmental policy in the long run, but that's not the goal per se.

Fear is a component of the human condition. Someone charges you with a knife, you feel fear. Someone detonates a bomb...fear. Giant space cuttlefish lands on your planet cutting buildings in half with it's eyebeam? Fear. Phone call from the IRS saying you're about to be audited? Fear. But in each of those cases, fear is just a side effect. It's not the weapon. Whereas in terrorism the weapon IS fear.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Wolfva2 wrote...

But in each of those cases, fear is just a side effect. It's not the weapon. Whereas in terrorism the weapon IS fear.

Terror as side-effect of the Reapers' violence can (and does, per that Javik story) play to their hands.

With their experiences through countless cycles, you have to think they're aware of it and how it works for them.

Given that, I'd argue it's a part of their "arsenal." I admit though, I could have it completely wrong!

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 30 avril 2013 - 05:45 .

[AlexMBrennan]

but Samara's extreme lawful-good ethics lead her to do just as much violence herself

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from but Samara is lawful neutral at best.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

but Samara's extreme lawful-good ethics lead her to do just as much violence herself

Yeah, I can see where you are coming from but Samara is lawful neutral at best.

DAMMIT! You're right. =[

[k.lalh]

Terrorism (and terror) is a funny thing.

For example, in the very unfortunate bombings during the Boston Marathon, mass panic resulted after the press fed on it like mad. It could be argued that two men managed to bring a massive metropolitan city to a halt.

How many millions of dollars were lost in lost productivity because of the state of lockdown it the city was put in?

Far too many. I understand that terrorism is a real threat, and needs to be stopped, but at what cost? Was shutting down a major city for a weekend justifiable? Ultimately the fault lies with the press, and the resultant public outcry.

It's funny. Allers said that wars can be won or lost in a cutting room, and this is a war that needs to be won.

So I standby my belief that if you can implant a heightened sense of fear, like a combination of terror and press, that's what causes hysteria. If only footage from Tuchanka and Rannoch was broadcasted, I feel that the "public" would feel much better.

[Wolfva2]

I'd say any good tactician plans for the likely responses of his opponents. 'Shock and Awe' has been a battle tactic for millenia. It's why the Picts ran into battle butt naked and painted blue...because seeing a naked blue man running at you with his dirk waving in the air....as well as whatever weapon he happens to be holding, can be unnerving. It's MUCH easier to defeat a scared foe, as opposed to someone who's feeling confident.

K.Lahl has some good points to.  I'll extend them to point out the Tsarnaev's used terror to achieve their goal...the shutting down of the city and wasting money.  The goal was terror; the bombs were the tools utilized to inflict it.  On the other hand, the Reapers goal is complete destruction of space faring races.  Extremely powerful weapons and harvesting people were the tools they used to achieve these goals.  Terror is just a byproduct of being attacked by nano-zombies and giant cuttlefish.

Modifié par Wolfva2, 30 avril 2013 - 06:19 .

[PsyrenY]

You have to remember that our cycle is very, very different than every previous one. Most cycles start off with a complete loss of infrastructure/central government. Nobody has communication outside of their isolated systems, nobody can use the relays - hell, people barely know what's going on, because few warnings made it (beyond the Crucible plans themselves, which are always discovered by some isolated group after the war is underway.) Vigil tells you in ME1 that every system is cut off from the others, easy prey for the Reaper fleets; Javik corroborates this by saying that "none of us knew what the others were doing."

Compare to our cycle - we still have the Citadel, and relay travel is still possible, if tricky for non-stealth ships. We prepared (sort of) for the invasion, which is slowing the Reapers down enough that many worlds and supply lines are still safe. Indoctrination is known to the general public, and so typical ploys by the Reapers (e.g. getting world leaders to enter their superstructures) are being rebuffed. Thanks to QEC and even the Rachni, we still have galactic communication even to conquered or contested systems. Most importantly of all, our invasion has only just started, whereas the event you mention (from Javik's story) happened very late into the war. The Protheans' harvest was already underway when Javik was born, never mind whenever he learned of the Crucible or the Densorin sacrificing their children.

As a result, hysteria is a lot less likely to happen in our cycle. I don't think Bioware "missed any opportunities" to show it - rather, it wouldn't have been realistic to already jump to things like civilizations sacrificing their young.

[Auld Wulf]

I'd have to agree. I honestly think that the "abomination aesthetic" is reminiscent of propaganda. For example: In every war we've had, and every cold war, and every instance of dealing with terrorism, we tend to deal with our opponents by painting them in a light that's designed to rally the peoples. That's a mindset familiar to every military, to the point where they keep reminding each other of their own propaganda to keep going. The realisation that they could be wrong is completely inconceivable to the point where it's impossible.

Mass Effect uses this propaganda to brilliant effect. I wouldn't be surprised if one of their plot writers had spent a good deal of time in the military -- I'd even think they might be a vet. I've had the chance to chat with a few, and I can say that the hate never truly goes away, they've admitted as much to me. That's the downside of propaganda, isn't it? Once the war has ended, it's hard to stop seeing a group of people as demons. Even today, Americans tend to yammer about "commies" and "pinkos." Admittedly of the older generation, but it's still there.

The Mass Effect ending is clever in the sense that it is, pretty much, a total paradigm shift. It deletes everything you think you know, because it's all false. All that programming to demonise the Reapers is now removed as you learn the truth of them. At this point, the mind has a sliding scale of how it reacts, between embracing this new truth, and clinging to the propaganda. In the same way that we still have people yelling "commie/pinko," we still have people yelling "abomination."

This is because propaganda is designed to create a hysterical hate fetish for the target of the propaganda. The target is demonised to such an extent, and you have this driven into your mind to such an extent, that you are oversaturated with the notion that X is evil. And you are subjected to peer-pressure from even the love interest to continue to believe that X is evil. That's how propaganda works. I'm familiar with it on many levels as a study of psychology -- propaganda is a circularly assertive thing. Once you get it out there, people will brainwash each other.

I'd say where BioWare made their biggest misstep was in making the propaganda too absolute. When a person is exposed to extreme levels of propaganda without realising it is propaganda, then you do have the hysterical results that the OP is seeing. In a way, it's very, very clever, because it demonstrates some of the base follies of the human mind. It has also backfired though in that it went too far, and that people can't unbrainwash themselves. They are at that precipice where if they see the Reapers as anything but an abomination, they will be broken.

I ran many polls to find out if this is actually the case -- and yes, it seems to be. The rationale people cook up to justify the propaganda and their actions whilst under the influence of that propaganda is across the board. You have some people who are desperate in a very real way to convince me that their perception of the Reapers is correct, it is a hysterical need and it is as bad (and it reminds me of) indoctrination.

If anything... I'd warn BioWare to be careful of utilising propaganda in future games. People are far too easily brainwashed. Even by entertainment. Perhaps... especially by entertainment.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 30 avril 2013 - 08:21 .

[Indy_S]

You know, Wulfie, only one of your polls is relevant to the discussion at hand. And if you believe that the most common answer of this poll supports your claim, you are looking at the results in a very close-minded way (which is out of character for you, I know). Are you so opposed to people reaching a different conclusion to you?

Come to think of it, another poll of yours does deal with propaganda. You seem quite content to demonize the Leviathans while defending the Reapers.

[ElSuperGecko]

Is hysteria worse than indoctrination? No, for the same reason hysteria is not worse than terrorism; we're talking cause and effect.

Indoctrination causes hysteria.
Terrorism causes hysteria.
Shock and awe tactics cause hysteria.

Is it hysterical to acknowledge and consider the strengths of the enemy? Is it hysterical to understand the risks inherent in dealing with said enemy? Is it propaganda when you've actually witnessed the enemy at work, and faced the situations first-hand?

Tell me, who do you think a hostage negotiator would be more cautious when dealing with?

- an armed man who's on the verge of a nervous breakdown or
- a known militant radical equipped with a suicide vest?

We have encountered the Reaper tactics time and time again across the course of the three games. We have direct examples of what happened to those who - knowingly or unknowingly - accepted the Reapers ideals and were bent to their purpose. We have seen individuals that found themselves broken by the Reapers empty promises, and who ended their lives in a world of regret.

Do you know what IS worse than indoctrination? Pretending it doesn't apply to YOU. Assuming YOU'RE immune. That you AREN'T potentially being led by the nose to a particular decision. And ignoring the advice you've been given and the hard lessons you've learned in the process.

The comment about how "hysteria" manifests in an out of game level is interesting as well. I've seen something similar - how "indoctrination" manifests in an out of game level. Kudos to Bioware for taking a narrative concept and implementing it so brilliantly that within the final section of the game that - even in a story as open to interpretation as this one - the player can essentially convince themselves that even given all the potential risks, arguments and evidence against it, they're making the right decision. Just like the OP, I'd rather not make an example of any individual or group of people, but the manifestations of self-indoctrination are pretty easy to spot when you know what you're looking for.

Chances are you might start see them once you've finished reading this post.

[Indy_S]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

...the player can essentially convince themselves that even given all the potential risks, arguments and evidence against it, they're making the right decision.

You captured my feelings about Destroy perfectly!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ HYR 2.0: What I'm seeing reading both threads is that people are seeing only what they wanted to see. You may think you've presented an unbiased view of things in the other thread you referenced but it is not unbiased. We just happen to know your bias and it's very easy to see it.

[dorktainian]

HYR 2.0

'taken from an interview with Mac before ME3 release'

Walters couldn't tell us what to expect in terms of ME3's plot points, but he did say what won't be happening. "You can't go and find one Reaper who actually turns out to be a good guy… things like, "Oh, yeah, these Reapers are OK." People playing the game will hopefully say, ‘Nope. They're as bad as everyone said they are.' You really don't want to be doing anything but killing them."


straight from the horses mouth so to speak. and your point is what?

[Argolas]

Hysteria and Indoctrination are not two extremes like Samara and Morinth.

The opposite of indoctrination is the defiant will to destroy the reapers at any cost- rational or not. Not a single resistance fighter on Earth is indoctrinated when we get there despite all the Reapers around- because they are dead set. They don't sit around, thinking about how the reapers could be appeased or used in their advantage, they just fight with everything they have and aim for the reapers' destruction at any cost. Every doubt, every little bit you consider an alternative that leaves the reapers intact means a weakened resolve and thus higher vulnerability against Indoctrination.

[Steelcan]

Hysteria is certainly an issue, but even the race in Javik's time couldn't kill off every one. Make no mistake the Reapers are portrayed as abominations because that's exactly what they are. The are explicitly designed for the destruction and corruption of life, they have no other purpose.

Many people disagree with this quality, saying BioWare went overboard with the "Reapers are pure evil" and that this didn't mesh well with the Catalysts's pathetic attempt at a shift in perspective for the player. But personally I don't see anything inconsistent. The Catalyst is just as callous and brutal as Harbinger and Sovereign, he just wears a nice face while doing it.

I he gave his whole ending speech in that Reaper voice he breaks out for Refuse, who would honestly want to work with him?

[Steelcan]

The Reapers aren't akin to any other enemy that we've faced before. Every single one of them is dedicated to the total corruption and extermination of organic life. There is no dissenting option, no political opposition, no sympathetic faction etc... They will not stop harvesting until they are killed, enslaved, or "freed"/put under Leviathan Control. Peace is not an option and we aren't given any sort of anti-Reaper propaganda because there is no need to distort the truth.

[Xilizhra]

The opposite of indoctrination is the defiant will to destroy the reapers at any cost- rational or not. Not a single resistance fighter on Earth is indoctrinated when we get there despite all the Reapers around- because they are dead set. They don't sit around, thinking about how the reapers could be appeased or used in their advantage, they just fight with everything they have and aim for the reapers' destruction at any cost. Every doubt, every little bit you consider an alternative that leaves the reapers intact means a weakened resolve and thus higher vulnerability against Indoctrination.

Being "dead-set" is no protection against indoctrination whatsoever. The only thing that works is staying away from Reapers themselves and their indoctrination artifacts. Amanda Kenson was committed to destroying the Reapers; look where she ended up. Certainly much deeper than Henry Lawson, who was much more careful about his work to control the Reapers and showed no signs of indoctrination as a result (also showing that just being in surgical proximity to Reaper implants will not indoctrinate you, note).

The Reapers aren't akin to any other enemy that we've faced before. Every single one of them is dedicated to the total corruption and extermination of organic life.

Supposed "corruption" is just a means of extermination. Also, they're not, they just kill off sufficiently technologically advanced organic life.

[Argolas]

Steelcan wrote...
Peace is not an option and we aren't given any sort of anti-Reaper propaganda because there is no need to distort the truth.

Some relevant dialogue about this:


EDI: Admiral Anderson reports that the Reapers on Earth are broadcasting orders. They are demanding human leaders enter their superstructures in order to, "Negotiate peace."
Shepard: Anybody aboard a Reaper is gonna be indoctrinated.
EDI: Exactly. This is a ruse to pacify the populace during that process. Citizens who are busy waiting, are not busy fighting. It is likely that the governments of Earth will soon enact laws punishing those who attack the Reaper occupiers. Again, this will be done in the name of peace.

[Xilizhra]

Argolas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Peace is not an option and we aren't given any sort of anti-Reaper propaganda because there is no need to distort the truth.

Some relevant dialogue about this:


EDI: Admiral Anderson reports that the Reapers on Earth are broadcasting orders. They are demanding human leaders enter their superstructures in order to, "Negotiate peace."
Shepard: Anybody aboard a Reaper is gonna be indoctrinated.
EDI: Exactly. This is a ruse to pacify the populace during that process. Citizens who are busy waiting, are not busy fighting. It is likely that the governments of Earth will soon enact laws punishing those who attack the Reaper occupiers. Again, this will be done in the name of peace.

Yes, because talking to an enemy who's curbstomping you is less effective than doing so while backed up by an ancient eldritch superweapon? Shock of shocks.

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Being "dead-set" is no protection against indoctrination whatsoever. The only thing that works is staying away from Reapers themselves and their indoctrination artifacts. Amanda Kenson was committed to destroying the Reapers; look where she ended up. Certainly much deeper than Henry Lawson, who was much more careful about his work to control the Reapers and showed no signs of indoctrination as a result (also showing that just being in surgical proximity to Reaper implants will not indoctrinate you, note).

Amanda Kenson was not determined to destroy the reapers, just to stop them, and even that only to a limited degree. She was working on the project she was in charge with. Working in a lab is different than fighting in a hell that once used to be your home. That is what makes you truly determined to destroy the Reapers. And that is appearantly a good protection against indoctrination, otherwise the resistance on Earth would not last long. There are Reapers around everywhere.

Xilizhra wrote...

The Reapers aren't akin to any other enemy that we've faced before. Every single one of them is dedicated to the total corruption and extermination of organic life.

Supposed "corruption" is just a means of extermination. Also, they're not, they just kill off sufficiently technologically advanced organic life.

I agree about your first statement. I disagree about your second. They exterminate all life. The only difference is whether they get wiped out immediatly or in the next cycle.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Reapers aren't akin to any other enemy that we've faced before. Every single one of them is dedicated to the total corruption and extermination of organic life.

Supposed "corruption" is just a means of extermination. Also, they're not, they just kill off sufficiently technologically advanced organic life.

. I can't hear you over the harvesters they harvested.

[Xilizhra]

Amanda Kenson was not determined to destroy the reapers, just to stop them, and even that only to a limited degree. She was working on the project she was in charge with. Working in a lab is different than fighting in a hell that once used to be your home. That is what makes you truly determined to destroy the Reapers. And that is appearantly a good protection against indoctrination, otherwise the resistance on Earth would not last long. There are Reapers around everywhere.

Their protection is that they don't hang around Reaper superstructures long enough to start hearing voices. That's it. Reapers they encounter on the field won't be trying to indoctrinate them, just incinerate them. "Determination" has nothing to do with it and has never helped (especially since my own Shepard, like Kenson, was only determined to stop them, which according to you wouldn't work).

I agree about your first statement. I disagree about your second. They exterminate all life. The only difference is whether they get wiped out immediatly or in the next cycle.

The implication was that they wanted organic life as a concept to end, which they don't.

. I can't hear you over the harvesters they harvested.

Very well, I'll order them to be quiet.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
Being "dead-set" is no protection against indoctrination whatsoever. The only thing that works is staying away from Reapers themselves and their indoctrination artifacts. Amanda Kenson was committed to destroying the Reapers; look where she ended up. Certainly much deeper than Henry Lawson, who was much more careful about his work to control the Reapers and showed no signs of indoctrination as a result (also showing that just being in surgical proximity to Reaper implants will not indoctrinate you, note).

True!  Avoiding discourse with Reaper agents, accepting their logic, their ideals and suggestions may help as well...

Supposed "corruption" is just a means of extermination. Also, they're not, they just kill off sufficiently technologically advanced organic life.

Explain the Reaper's use of Harvesters, please.