Ok then. I'd like to hear their solutions for the Reapers. What they'd do to stop it, without my help.
Either they accept the sociopath willing to burn the galaxy for his own interests and goals, or they accept burning under the Reapers.
There's a difference between sociopath and psychopath. The former simply doesn't care for human life. The latter is actively looking for a way to end it.
Mr.47 from Hitman series is a sociopath. You have displayed markedly psychopathic behavior in this thread.
I don't mind that kind of power or capability in a single person's hands. Hell, I wish I had said powers. I've found people's acceptance for that kind of power in fiction does have some correlation to their own views on power and authority.
As I said, the game was clear that Shepard alone was going to be the only one capable of stopping the Reapers. I wish they made it more so, and I wish they made it clearer and more explicit.
Who doesn't wish they had said powers?
Anyway, what you say makes sense. I'm kinda a philosophical libertarian. Maybe that's why I have issues with one person having disproportionate power in fiction.
I feel that Shepard shoudn't have, because there's no reason that she is the only one.
I disagree. His fear was perfectly justified. I'd be more scared of Luke than a fleet. Mainly because he whomped the fleet, but got whomped by Luke in turn.
Ah, but that's only for Revan. Until Karen Traviss came along, it was shown that an average Jedi was worth 100 Clone Troopers. A high-powered or important Jedi was worth an entire fleet. Any Council member is going to be worth a fleet. Yoda alone is worth a sector.
If he used his abilities, maybe. Otherwise, he'd be technologically outmatched. The Doctor on the other hand...
The Doctor, with a day of prep time, would solo the Reapers in a matter of minutes.
It's been a year or two, was the Anakin Solo a uniquely powerful ISD? Just wondering.
If I'm trying to take control of Correlia, I'm not going to point Luke at it and say "conquer."
Well, if Revan knows the science behind turbolasers, then it'd be easy.
That's very simple and obvious, Steelcan. People band together to protects themselves when they have to. Like cattle, really. They share in delusions, so they share in their 'defense.' Which unfortunately includes such incredibly tedious measures as feigning laughter.
I'm not laughing now David. It's actual sad if you really think like this.
Who doesn't wish they had said powers?
Anyway, what you say makes sense. I'm kinda a philosophical libertarian. Maybe that's why I have issues with one person having disproportionate power in fiction.
I feel that Shepard shoudn't have, because there's no reason that she is the only one.
I don't know, everything comes with a price tag, power is no exception
To me, power and responsibility are positively correlated
There's a difference between sociopath and psychopath. The former simply doesn't care for human life. The latter is actively looking for a way to end it.
Mr.47 from Hitman series is a sociopath. You have displayed markedly psychopathic behavior in this thread.
I've got sociopathic tendencies. I'm not a guy who gets off on killing, and I don't have the personality issues of a psychopath. To be frank, I don't care for human life all too much. Or better to be put; I don't place any tangible intrinsic value on it. I'm not going to fly off for the opportunity to kill.
That said, I'm not really a guy who goes for killing. I prefer to call it winning. Thoroughly (thank you Ender Wiggin).
I don't know, everything comes with a price tag, power is no exception
To me, power and responsibility are positively correlated
To me, power is its own responsibility. The only responsibility owed is to keep it. Use it as you wish. You have the power, you make the rules. You make the morals, you decide what's right and what's wrong.
Well if human history is any guide, people are all too happy to hand over ultimate power and authority to a single individual. The problem is that these institutions rely so heavily on the personal capabilities of the leader that they tend to break down immediately unless there's someone worthwhile to follow.
This is getting rather long and tedious to keep answering too. The answers are getting too long to type, and I imagine it's taking us well over a half hour to make our responses. I'm going to slim it down. Suffice to say for everything though, I think we're not going to budge on any issue as you say. We've hit a snag in our reasoning and it's not the first time. We want a lot of the same things, but we want to get there differently for different reasons. To make an analogy: In Casino Royale, Bond asks M about how to cap some guy: You'd be the one looking for the clean kill, I'd be the one looking to send a message. You want power to use in total secrecy to make things you want without shaking things up, I want people to know who's in charge.
1) Disagree. I didn't say 100% Total War, I said as close to it as organically possible. People are weak. I'm their leader, and I know that they're weak. It's what the Reapers use against them, their morality, their compassion, and their humanity. Suffice to say, I think dropping it is for the best. Otherwise, there's no point fighting them, since we aren't collectively willing to be the monster.
2) Agree, but I'll also say that there isn't going to be a foolproof method of stopping Reaper indoctrination. I think running is more trouble than it's worth. I think I'd take my chance of building the Crucible and making my own stab at power once its finished.
3) Disagree. I think we have a different ideal of what we hold as the ideal benefit. We aren't going to budge on this as you say: It depends on how we view the cost and what we're trying to accomplish with it. My solution isn't beneficial for your ideal, just as yours isn't beneficial to my ideal.
4) I think we're going to disagree on a lot of that. I can respect your view, since I do it too for the ending, but I draw my own conclusions as well from the data. I think we also have a different ideal as to what we view each thing that BW intended. I know you don't mean it, but you come across as dismissive towards everything BW did when it was only over certain things that you disagreed with the handling of. I agree with you, but I also think differently about things you probably would maintain, and you think differently about things I would maintain. For instance, I'd change Cerberus portrayal to be more competent and sympathetic, whereas you'd keep them as inept and lolevil. You'd change Sanctuary to be more lolworthy, while I'd keep it as a place where things were done that were legitimate game-changers against the Reapers (or at least gave us distinct advantages for the rest of the war). We aren't going to budge on this. The second paragraph goes back to seeing the people of the galaxy as weak. I think we'd disagree on that as well. I want my people to accept that there is no hope. That they have nothing to live for. It's a philosophical debate for Soldiers, famously propagated by Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Spiers: Who fights harder, the people with something to fight for, or the people with nothing to lose? It's a tough answer, and it is dependent on one's worldview. I personally hold that the person that accepts that they're already dead loses all fear and inhibition and becomes a deadlier soldier. There's cases where both are right, and there's cases where both failed miserably.
5) I'll say one thing first: Evil is relative in my opinion. I'm sure you'd agree with that. I just wanted to get it out of the way. Next, I'll agree, power does not make one evil. The person who has the power gets to define what is evil and what is not. That's something else I think we'd agree on. That said, I disagree with that ideal of that comparison. This isn't Star Wars: I don't have to worry about force-users. I don't have the force myself, but I'd rather we all be unpowered than all empowered. I think we could keep things a bit more fair there (at least for me anyway, and that's all that matters). As far as trust and approval goes, what about my own? I can't trust or approve of them. I can manipulate them, but it's a two way street. As a leader, I have to know if my people are up for the job. They can love me and follow me into hell itself, but if they can't back me up when I need them, then it's **** all. I can't rely on them to stand, only to die. And I have to let them know what I expect from them, and what I plan for them to do. It's my cost: do I want their trust and approval, or do I want their obedience and results? For what I'm asking obedience for, mutually exclusive doesn't begin to cover it. If they're too weak to do it, then they're too weak to win. And that's a no-no for me, because I want to win, and I want to survive. I disagree about the 'evil' people. I don't view them as being the ones who should be controlled or disposed of. I think we disagree on what our definition of evil is.
6) I don't think I am mistaken. That's not to say you are, but we view Shepard differently. Chalk this up to number 4, but I'm sure BW intended Shepard to be the guy who makes the difference. He's not a cog in the machine, or even the most important part of the machine, but he is the machine. Without the various cogs, he can't function, and without him, the cogs are just various pieces of the engine, none of which are greater than their parts. He's more than a symbol or an icon. He's the guy who will win you the war. He is the guy who makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. And I think we're going to disagree here with BW's intent. And even if my Shepard goes all fascist and authoritarian, he will still be in charge because of his need. Let the galaxy think he's dead post-war. You know my scenario. For the war itself, he's god-almighty. I think any attempt to fight or win without Shepard is doomed to absolute failure. And I think it should be that way too. You really can't say otherwise, since you never play as anyone but Shepard, and only Shepard ever reaches that threshold. As I said, we're never going to agree on that.
Indeed. The past couple pages I found myself replying to your post and then going back to see if there was anything else I missed. I'm down with the number system though.
1) Warning: Corny idealist response incoming- Compassion, morality and humanity are what we fight for. Without them we might as well be Reapers.
OK I don't really believe that but it's not entirely nonsense either. Those things are aggregately part of our human nature, or if that's too loaded a term, part of what it is that we define as human. I don't believe it can be cast aside, even temporarily while still remaining human. Individuals can, and do and such sacrifices are sometimes needed. But not humanity as a whole. It can't be done, it won't ever be done. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
And from another admittedly less serious angle, we suck at being as monstrous as Reapers. They outclass us in every respect.
2) Kill anyone you suspect of being indoctrinated? Here is where you take no chances and go extreme at the slightest provocation. Once you've secured a facility and everyone's onboard it's also time to erase anything and anyone that knows about it. Yourself included, if you're not staying.
3) Still think you focus too much on benefit and not enough on loss but whatever. Impasse reach, point dropped.
4) Not really. For one, most of the things I end up talking about regarding Bioware's intent are things I can't stand due to stupidity, short-sightedness, over-sightedness or some combination thereof. There are things I like or don't mind that maybe just don't get brought up a lot. It may just be General Internet Discussion Syndrome where negatives are always louder (check with your doctor if you think you have GIDS).
As to things I'd change for what you mentioned: It's a difficult spot for Cerberus because Bioware decreed they should be the villains (when we already have bigger, better villains). And I rag on them for what they are, not what I'd want them to be. Raising their competency would involve some pretty substantial rewrites to ME2 and the sidequests in ME. But if I could change all that I might. By the way have you seen Winter Soldier yet?
Sanctuary I wouldn't change too much apart from making it clear that nothing they did was going to affect the Reapers themselves. Honestly, why are we being hammered by "lol conventional victory won't work" the entire game but some disgruntled-intern looking dude finding a way to hack the Reapers is totally legit? In any case I could acquiesce to some of your point and have a clear reference about an advantage in ground warfare against Reaper minions. Oh, and completely rework Lawson, so he's actually badass (in a noncombatant way), threatening and provides a satisfying encounter by being completely in control right up until the surprise attack from Miranda, verbally lashing the **** out of her, again until the end and preferably being played by Bill Nighy.
The fact that there's cases where both "something to fight for" and "nothing left to lose" work or fail should be some indication that neither works all the time. It may depend on the context or it may work differently for different people. That would warn me against trying to apply it across all my forces.
5) The Sith reference is not dependent on the Force or any other power. The powerful Sith Lord has the Force but so do the weaklings who eventually overthrow him. Not to the same extent obviously, but they're in the same area. The point isn't about power per se, but rather that numbers can threaten even the most powerful. Now for a Sith Lord, simply eliminating all the numbers is an option. Not so for you.
It's not your cost, it's everybody's cost. And you expect the impossible from everybody and then say you can't trust them as a result. I think you need to re-examine what you want to ask and limit it to the possible. "I expect you all to die so that I may live" just isn't going to fly.
Evil is relative. But we seek good and are generally successful in obtaining and maintaining it. We only need evil when that doesn't work anymore. Thus we only need evil people in those select situations. Now evil people by virtue of being good at their job have a propensity or tendency to do evil. But we don't need it all the time. Hence why they must be controlled or disposed of when that doesn't work.
6) No we're not. And here's an example where I don't automatically denounce or dismiss Bioware intent. I don't mind being the most important person in the galaxy, the power fantasy etc. But that's all meta perspective. And none of what I've been arguing really cares about the meta-perspective. To us Shepard is Space Jesus, the centerpoint, the end-all and be-all of this thing we call Mass Effect. But in-universe, he's just a dude. A very accomplished, very badass, very well trained and lethal dude, but a dude nonetheless. And when I say Shepard is the living symbol of our fight against the Reapers, the spearhead of the Resistance and so on I'm talking from an in-universe perspective. He's the John Connor, he's the Leonidas, he's the Grand Admiral Thrawn (not for naught did I drop the Flim reference).
Speaking of Terminator, the original ending of Salvation was John Connor dies, they graft his face on Marcus and "John Connor" the symbol goes on to defeat Skynet. That's what you can do with a living symbol. Hell most people in the MEU probably don't even know Shepard's exact likeness and wouldn't instantly spot him in a crowd. In an alternate post-war future where Shepard walks around I sometimes imagine him being in a store or something and someone goes "Aren't you Shepard?" to which his buddy immediately replies "Nah, that's not Shepard. Too tall/not tall enough, eyes too close/wide apart, etc..." People idealize, the media airbrushes and truth quickly becomes secondary. So yes, Shepard can be killed, become a legend (in the intelligence sense) and fulfill the exact same role real Shepard would. As for combat and tactical skills, no question. Any of the MP N7s could fill in just fine (plus some of them can teleport!)
So why do people outside of our little Clique also tend to agree with us over you.
So we are all tricking ourselves and deluding ourselves into believing whatever it is you think we believe, its inconceivable that maybe, just maybe you are mistaken about this as you are so many other things, like basic biology, physics, history, logical argument, or thematic interpretation?
I'll come clean, I've been indoctrinating people to disagree with David since day one. Sorry guys... 
Damn it, I missed Star Wars discussion? Well ****.
A Jedi/Sith is worth multiple units of regular fighting forces but how much depends on their skills and power levels (not all of them are over 9000). Can also depend on context.
That being said Massively's view of Shepard isn't really the same thing. He's going meta with it. Basically since Shepard's the protagonist and Bioware made Mass Effect noticeably power fantasy-ish, Shepard is the most important/powerful person in the galaxy.
In-universe however it's obviously a different matter.
Ridiculous.
Self-parody? Nice.
I didn't know you had a sense of humor.
The turret scene in London. The only reason I can think of why its there is for the other soldiers to see Shepard help fight the reapers ground forces giving them a boost in confidence.
The turret scene after the destroyer pops out of its hole
The turret scene in London. The only reason I can think of why its there is for the other soldiers to see Shepard help fight the reapers ground forces giving them a boost in confidence.
The turret scene after the destroyer pops out of its hole
That, and natural sociopathic and severe tendencies.
This has been bugging me. You claim to be this, which is basically Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Defining characteristsics are:
And you think Miranda would be interested in such a person? More to the point, does the US Army actually not see this behaviour as a problem? I'd hate to be under your command.
We should probably all be a bit more wary of self-diagnosing mental disorders. The thing is that these days the media bombards us with so much fluff designed specifically to tug at our heartstrings that people have just sort of become desensitized to it all. The prospect of just not caring about any of it can definitely seem attractive and quite liberating. If the game gives us the opportunity to act like selfish bastards without any consequences, a lot of people will jump at being able to live that fantasy.
I have to agree that the starbrat conversation is the worst scene of the series.
Yeah, but it's such an obvious answer 
@uber
Well, when I challenged him earlier in the thread to think about how Joker would react to orders to fly to Tiptree so he could nuke it, his first impulse was to break Joker's neck after Joker freaked out... granted, he did stipulate he wouldn't bother with Tiptree to begin with.
He views Shepard as indispensable, utterly vital to winning the war, and thus the galaxy has to bow to his every demand or he'll withdraw and watch it all burn. Hence why "he'd burn the galaxy to save Miranda" but he's uncaring for subordinates who take umbrage at being ordered to kill their own families. The Shepard's desires and goals (namely stopping the Reapers and laying the framework for his post-war power base, stealth-like) are all that matters.
Yep, more or less sum me up. If I have any kind of morality chain, it's going to be Miranda. I have a small fear that it would be like Anakin Skywalker and Padme. He's willing to destroy everything she believes in for her. I'm too nihilistic to truly take her views to heart, but I can see how that would be the one thing to really halt me from turning into the War Doctor, the Time Lord Victorious, or Rassilon.
That said, when I say I'd take down Joker, I was meaning in self-defense, pre-emptively or not. Joker probably would snap at those orders and attack me, and I'd do what I'd have to do to maintain my authority.
It's not even that I'd be in that unfettered state permanently. Outside the war, I'd probably end up being the hero everyone thinks I am (veneer of normalcy and humanity included). But as long as there are Reapers, I will be what I need to be.
Maybe. But a shep like that would swiftly be found face down in a ditch, unmourned; certainly not by miranda.
We should probably all be a bit more wary of self-diagnosing mental disorders. The thing is that these days the media bombards us with so much fluff designed specifically to tug at our heartstrings that people have just sort of become desensitized to it all. The prospect of just not caring about any of it can definitely seem attractive and quite liberating. If the game gives us the opportunity to act like selfish bastards without any consequences, a lot of people will jump at being able to live that fantasy.
For me, it's a bit more real. I sort of developed my own psyche as I aged, and I'd say it was... refined when I did a tour in Afghanistan at the beautiful age of 18.
This has been bugging me. You claim to be this, which is basically Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Defining characteristsics are:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
- Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of agression, including violence;
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
- Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalisations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
And you think Miranda would be interested in such a person? More to the point, does the US Army actually not see this behaviour as a problem? I'd hate to be under your command.
If that's your personal assertion of me, the irony is that I'm actually quite a bit of a people person. I'm not going to say I'm a Fox Mulder level (or David level) psychological profiler (I'm no where near that) but I'm pretty decent at getting to the bottom of what makes a lot of people tick. Hell, it's part of the reason why I believe people would be well served to change what makes them tick. I'm the guy that (especially with my position) gets stuck fixing a lot of people's problems. And to be honest, I don't care about their gratitude or thanks. I don't get the 'good' feelings people get by doing 'good'. Quite literally for me, doing good does not feel good.
1) Not necessarily. In a less extreme setting, I'd have the luxury of being 'human' so to speak.
2) I completely disagree on the irresponsibility part. It's because I believe I have a responsibility that I do what I do. That said, I somewhat agree on the norms, rules, and obligations. I obey and disregard them at my convenience when it works for me and it is beneficial for me. Norms are a bit different. Those are the odd social cues and behaviors that people do, like guys not standing next to another guy in the latrine urinal.
3) I'll agree that I have difficulty maintaining relationships, though it's naive to say it's for these reasons alone. There are a lot of factors, especially for me being in the military, that are the cause of this. That said, I establish relationships with others with ease. I suppose it sort of validates your point when I say I have a relatively complex list of former lovers who I've... broken it off with at a premature point.
4) Completely untrue in my case. I have a tendency to be viewed as very severe and intense, and (unsurprisingly, calculating and emotionless). I can be social and interested when I want to be, but otherwise, I don't really take frustration well. I circumvent and improvise. If I'm stumped or frustrated, I'm not thinking about the problem in the right way.
5) Depends on the circumstances. Even I know how it feels to be an ass. That said, it's kind of true. I'm not prone to guilt like normal people. I have no problem being a manipulative bastard. I do learn from experience and punishment however. I learn not to screw up. Take for instance, the Spartan method. Young boys in Spartan training camps were beaten if they were found to have stolen equipment, items, food, etc. The purpose of these beatings was not to enforce authority or teach them right from wrong, but to compel them not to get caught the next time they stole. If you got punished for doing something wrong, you should have been more careful. I do learn from experience, just not the experience you think I should learn.
6) If there's a plausible rationalization, then there's an answer. If blaming others benefits me more than punishment would, then yeah, I'd go with it. Learn from your mistake by watching how someone else pays for it. All the experience, none of the pain. Works for me.
Miranda defines several of these traits to be honest. That said, no she wouldn't be. That said, as I've stated, I'm not the person. I don't have that personality type.
As for the Army, yes, they actively search for people with those tendencies to fill certain positions. They don't take the best shooters and make them snipers. They take the people capable of thinking like that and make them a killing machine to be unleashed on the enemy with utterly terrifying efficiency and brutality. You should read the dialogue from some of the snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan (American, British, Canadian, and Australians especially). Trust me, I'll look tame in comparison.
Retour en haut
