52 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

If you want agency, why are you playing a Bioware game?

 

If the best planets for colonization are already colonized, then the milky way races are doomed in any meaningful conflict. A few thousand people, with far fewer ships, would be pitifully unsuited for any sort of interstellar warfare. The nature of the ME universe technology makes it really, really easy to break stuff, but much less so to hold it- and conquest requires holding.

 

One of the really nice things about colonizing empty lands rather than populations is that it requires a lot less people to do. No occupation army needed- or the countless costs associated with a colonial occupation. And that's on top of the culture of the would-be occupiers that might not like such.

To be fair, genocide wouldn't require any holding or occupation.

 

Not all planets are militaristic, just as with the real world, there are countries that are weak in military but are very rich in resources. 

[MrBSN2017]

I really hope not. If you want to see rape and pillaging, turn on the news.

Hopefully, there will be intelligent life to interact and compromise with. If some aliens came to our galaxy, it would be nice to see what we could learn from them and what commonalities we share thus creating a barter with knowledge for resources.

Then again, it could turn out to be a shoot first and ask questions later if they are anything like humans.

[omgodzilla]

If you want agency, why are you playing a Bioware game?

 

If the best planets for colonization are already colonized, then the milky way races are doomed in any meaningful conflict. A few thousand people, with far fewer ships, would be pitifully unsuited for any sort of interstellar warfare. The nature of the ME universe technology makes it really, really easy to break stuff, but much less so to hold it- and conquest requires holding.

 

One of the really nice things about colonizing empty lands rather than populations is that it requires a lot less people to do. No occupation army needed- or the countless costs associated with a colonial occupation. And that's on top of the culture of the would-be occupiers that might not like such.

 

If the technological gap is large enough, then there's a chance they can successfully defeat a more primitive species. Hell, what if the species being invaded isn't even spacefaring yet? What fight can they put up? And its not necessary to occupy them. Merely to take some land, and get rid of any locals that may live there. Taking the entire planet could theoretically be possible if we completely wipe out the native civilization, though I doubt Bioware would let us go that far. 

[omgodzilla]

I really hope not. If you want to see rape and pillaging, turn on the news.

Hopefully, there will be intelligent life to interact and compromise with. If some aliens came to our galaxy, it would be nice to see what we could learn from them and what commonalities we share thus creating a barter with knowledge for resources.

Then again, it could turn out to be a shoot first and ask questions later if they are anything like humans.

 

Well, If you want the diplomatic route, then you would take the diplomatic route. The aggressive expansion path would be intended for the players who would prefer to take that approach. I'm sure there are renegade options you didn't like or pick in the previous trilogy. How would this be any different? 

[Dean_the_Young]

If the technological gap is large enough, then there's a chance they can successfully defeat a more primitive species. Hell, what if the species being invaded isn't even spacefaring yet? What fight can they put up? And its not necessary to occupy them. Merely to take some land, and get rid of any locals that may live there. Taking the entire planet could theoretically be possible if we completely wipe out the native civilization, though I doubt Bioware would let us go that far. 

 

Please, this is Bioware. And Mass Effect. They couldn't split entire planets when it was a population of only a few million, nor are they going to let us play genocidal conquistador because Reasons.

 

Besides the issue isn't the immediate target of conquest- it's the other space-faring civilizations. That always has been, and will again, be the focus of the series.

[von uber]

I hope the Milky Way fleet is annihlated within two minutes by a single light cruiser from the v'Tghaaark civilisation for not answering the customary greeting with the correct genuflecting of their hrrraaaaaggh.

[Guanxii]

Let's face it we're aren't going to be capable of raiding and pillaging vastly technologically superior foes who have had their evolution un-interrupted since the beginning of time. Won't stop Batarian and Krogan mercenary douchebags from having a good go at it and turning the locals against you no matter what you do.

[Display Name Owner]

I definitely hope they touch on this. Or actually, make it a real core issue. But then to be fair, Andromeda is also... quite big. It seems weird to be like, "this is our land!" when we're talking about ridiculous numbers of space, stars and planets. Depends on where and how we're colonising, so maybe there will be some ethical choices on that matter.

[In Exile]

To be fair, genocide wouldn't require any holding or occupation.

 

Not all planets are militaristic, just as with the real world, there are countries that are weak in military but are very rich in resources. 

Genocide would require both. You'd need extermination camps on a massive scale - Bioware portrayed it right with the Reapers essentially building industrial death camps. I don't think any developer is going to go any further down the "people with the death camps are the good guys route", and Bioware kind of already went as close to it as they're getting in ME3. 

 

Any small scale massacre would engender a significant military response from the victim power - and in that case you'd need a huge imbalance of power already in favour of the MW races (plus the aforementioned holding) to have them survive. Plus, you'd just wind up in the "why don't the aliens nuke them from orbit?" question. 

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

If a realistic examination of contact between groups is going to be explored, then there would have to be, in addition to the familiar "colonizers are evil people who wanted to commit genocide" theme:

1) Native groups fighting with each other and attempting genocide in some cases.

2) Native groups teaming up with the newcomers against other native groups (as was the case in New England)

3) Large segments of the weaker native groups opposing the strongest empire in the native area

4) Newcomers being slaughtered for no good reason

5) Simple, peaceful exchange of goods and services between individuals of different groups

6) Misunderstandings between the natives and the newcomers that are not due to ill will

7) Significant disagreement within the newcomer group about how to treat the natives

8) The role of unintentional spread of disease in both directions

9) The spread of technology and knowledge in both directions

10) Factions of newcomers teaming up with natives against other factions of newcomers (as with the French vs. the English).

11) The colonization of more or less uninhabited regions, including the problem of what counts as uninhabited and what counts as ownership

 

If I found out that the game is some sort of one-sided fantasy in which I am forced to choose between the absolutely noble, virtuous, perfect natives and my evil, murderous fellow colonizers, I would not want to play the game. In fact, if there is any race which is a sci fi version of Rousseau's fictitious "Noble Savage" I would be inclined to avoid it.

[X Equestris]

If a realistic examination of contact between groups is going to be explored, then there would have to be, in addition to the familiar "colonizers are evil people who wanted to commit genocide" theme:
1) Native groups fighting with each other and attempting genocide in some cases.
2) Native groups teaming up with the newcomers against other native groups (as was the case in New England)
3) Large segments of the weaker native groups opposing the strongest empire in the native area
4) Newcomers being slaughtered for no good reason
5) Simple, peaceful exchange of goods and services between individuals of different groups
6) Misunderstandings between the natives and the newcomers that are not due to ill will
7) Significant disagreement within the newcomer group about how to treat the natives
8) The role of unintentional spread of disease in both directions
9) The spread of technology and knowledge in both directions
10) Factions of newcomers teaming up with natives against other factions of newcomers (as with the French vs. the English).
11) The colonization of more or less uninhabited regions, including the problem of what counts as uninhabited and what counts as ownership
 
If I found out that the game is some sort of one-sided fantasy in which I am forced to choose between the absolutely noble, virtuous, perfect natives and my evil, murderous fellow colonizers, I would not want to play the game. In fact, if there is any race which is a sci fi version of Rousseau's fictitious "Noble Savage" I would be inclined to avoid it.

Yeah, if we're going to look at colonization, let's look at all of its aspects, rather than a simplistic "newcomers=bad, natives=good".

Also, I think a lot of people are forgetting that we're basically going to be refugees, not expansionist conquerors. In all likelihood, we'll be in a worse situation than the quarians ever were. And with a situation like that, it wouldn't be a very smart idea to start saber rattling.

Further, I'm not sure why some people seem to think that all of the habitable planets will be settled. From what little we've seen, I get the impression that the area is something of a frontier. Perhaps the cluster is claimed but only lightly settled by some major power, perhaps there are smaller native powers in the cluster, but nothing shown so far suggests to me that the whole cluster is settled.

[taglag]

I really hope not. If you want to see rape and pillaging, turn on the news.

Hopefully, there will be intelligent life to interact and compromise with. If some aliens came to our galaxy, it would be nice to see what we could learn from them and what commonalities we share thus creating a barter with knowledge for resources.

Then again, it could turn out to be a shoot first and ask questions later if they are anything like humans.

 

   While I understand your concern. There is a reason why rape and pillaging is portrayed on the News so vividly, and often.

 

This is what people want to see, and it is what drives ratings up. So as much as I might hate it or like it ( depending on preference ).... It does sell, and evidently is profitable for them.

 

   While most news is bad news, there will be a small neighbor helps neighbor type story normally near the end of many news broadcasts, but they seem to be only for show, and do not tend to drive ratings.  [ Mostly for the awe!   effect ]

[KirkyX]

That could play a massive role in the paragon/reneged side of the game should they choose to follow that kind of path with it. Diplomacy being easier with higher paragon and should that fail, if you choose to do a reneged play through, you must resort to violence. Wouldn't mind seeing a mechanic like that in the game.

I'm gonna be honest--I really hope that isn't how it plays out. It should be possible to roleplay a right dickhead who knows how to be diplomatic when the situation calls for it - or any other variation on 'sometimes naughty/sometimes nice/sometimes kinda eh'*, since people react to different situations in different ways - and the Paragon/Renegade system you describe makes that, if not impossible, at least very difficult. 

 

What I want is an explicit persuasion skill, not tied to morality - and some other 'skill check' stuff, like the Engineer being able to rewire Omega's reactor right quick - combined with some sort of reputation system. So, if Colonel Ryder von SpaceDoom is known for promising to be nice, and then pulling a 'Wipe this pathetic planet from the face of the galaxy!' - just as an example; this sort of system could play out in all sorts of ways - mabbe people'll be less likely to trust her--though only if it makes sense for the people you're dealing with to have heard of you.

 

*(Also, sarcastic dialogue options, lots of 'em.)

[Aimi]

Genocide would require both. You'd need extermination camps on a massive scale - Bioware portrayed it right with the Reapers essentially building industrial death camps.

Extermination camps are largely an anomaly in the history of human genocide. Apart from Nazi Germany, few death camps have actually been maintained, and even Nazi Germany killed more people outside of its death camps than inside them, due to the depredations of its military, paramilitary formations, and the effects of the so-called Hunger Plan. There can be "efficiencies" associated with such centralized murder factories as Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but to claim that they are necessary is completely untrue.

Genocide does, however, require occupation, or at the very least a significant military or paramilitary presence.

[dead_goon]

Genocide doesn't require occupation at all, nor does it need a significant military or paramilitary presence, all it needs is cunning & a suitable bioweapon, after all I don't recall any large scale Salarian presence on Tuchanka, & the Salarians could so easily have irradicated the Krogan if that'd been their aim.

[SolNebula]

I'd agree OP but then it's BW we are talking about. They like to sugar-coat pretty much everything in their game. Dragon Age is a rainbow world.

[rashie]

I don't think bioware have the balls to explore that topic fully, in a manner were the player would be the one responsible for these interactions, I'm fully expecting a cleaned up version of the topic.

[BloodyMares]

I'd rather Bioware focuses more on the idea of survival in the foreign and unknown space. The premise is clear that we are not going to be conquerors but rather a small group of explorers sent with purpose to learn about the new galaxy and find some place (that isn't taken already) to colonize. The story should be more like "The Martian" or "Interstellar" than "Avatar". While I'm sure the newcomers from Milky Way brought some war tech with them to the Andromeda but only as means to defend themselves should the need ever arise.
I don't want the protagonist to be a conqueror of the galaxy but there certainly is a room for such morality. There should be some characters (like krogan) that think that invading other worlds and killing off the natives is a good idea. It should be a thing in the same manner that xenophobia was portrayed in the first game and Shepard could be a xenophobe as well (depending on the morality). But this should only be a part of the worldbuilding. The story shouldn't focus on that. Our main goal in the new galaxy should be exploration and survival, not the conquest.

[Seboist]

I'd agree OP but then it's BW we are talking about. They like to sugar-coat pretty much everything in their game. Dragon Age is a rainbow world.

In more ways than one.

[Seraphim24]

Wait a sec...

 

First of all it's largely a myth that the New Englanders brutally exterminated a huge continent worth of people.The Native Americans were very spread out in small clusters, and most of the American-Indian wars consisted of localized conflicts (think like those westerns where the violence revolves around small groups)

 

That isn't to excuse when it did happen, and it most certainly did happen, but as stated the Native Americans were concentrated in a few areas and not necessarily just everywhere. Again from wikipedia...

 

"The United States Census Bureau (1894) provided their estimate of deaths due specifically to war during the 102 years between 1789 and 1891, including 8,500 Indians and 5,000 whites killed in "individual affairs":"

 

Again, not trying to downplay what happened, just trying to say what happened... a much larger percentage of deaths were due to things like diseases transmitted and stuff like that, is my understanding.

 

Secondly it sometimes went both ways Native American tribes would fight back and occasionally massacre Americans in rather great and large numbers. For example

 

https://en.wikipedia...i/Dade_Massacre

 

Third, why are in invaders in MEA I didn't know if that had necessarily been determined.

 

In fact it's kind of hard to find historical examples of groups of people who literally went into a continent or country and just started mass murdering everyone there. More likely, they move in, set up a government, etc. In the worst instances, rising tensions do indeed produce relatively sizable  massacres and death such as in German East Africa

 

https://en.wikipedia...amaqua_genocide

 

However, it's certainly not an automatic element of "colonization," it's more that they often play into other issues such as race and factors that still linger today. Apparently the German government still denies that Herero and Namaqua consituted a "genocide" for instance, likewise the conflict between Native Americans and New Englanders is sometimes used as a basis for "White supremacy" and other bad things, and so issues that arise in "colonization" become sounding boards for a variety of other elements.

 

In contrast, the Akkadians for instance according to what we know "assimilated" with Sumer, not really colonizing. I've also read similar explanations of the "Aryan invasion" of the Indus Valley. Many saw it as more of a gradual displacement, beginning with people just kind of living in harmony and sharing knowledge and understanding.

 

There's also cases of colonizers killing each other at times, such as you can find in America a strain of Mormons massacring random men, women, and children of a group of "New Englander/Americans" traveling to California in the Mountain Meadows massacre, ultimately actually trying to pass the blame off on Native Americans (so it's like genocide and racism and a few things mixed together)

 

https://en.wikipedia...eadows_massacre

 

TLDR Colonization doesn't really mean anything inherently historically it's often been people moving around and looking for places to live, the interactions with people already living there are often multi-faceted and complex.

[Dean_the_Young]

The more relevant part about the native american genocide as I recal is that it wasn't deliberate, or even purposeful- it was accidental and inadvertent thanks to disease.

 

While there are numerous recorded cases of sending smallpox blankets and such, those were after the initial wipeout. Something like, what, 99% of the north american indian population died to diseases from the first spanish expeditions centuries prior? Expeditions that in no way knew of or understood the diseases they were carying.

 

The vast majority of indians who died from smallpox never saw a European colonist, which is part of why Americans have the idea of the 'empty continent' myth of their founding. The US didn't have to conquer empires as it spread across the continent- the prior empires had already collapsed.

 

Small pox and the the settler diseases were simply that effective. They didn't need to be deliberatly spread to wipe out nearly all the local population.

[Seraphim24]

The more relevant part about the native american genocide as I recal is that it wasn't deliberate, or even purposeful- it was accidental and inadvertent thanks to disease.

 

While there are numerous recorded cases of sending smallpox blankets and such, those were after the initial wipeout. Something like, what, 99% of the north american indian population died to diseases from the first spanish expeditions centuries prior? Expeditions that in no way knew of or understood the diseases they were carying.

 

The vast majority of indians who died from smallpox never saw a European colonist, which is part of why Americans have the idea of the 'empty continent' myth of their founding. The US didn't have to conquer empires as it spread across the continent- the prior empires had already collapsed.

 

Small pox and the the settler diseases were simply that effective. They didn't need to be deliberatly spread to wipe out nearly all the local population.

 

Well I'm sure it was alternately deliberate and accidental... but you brought up something else which is that to my understanding the most brutal element of the Americas and Europe was the Spanish element that began in South America. The Mayas and huge amounts of ancient cultures and civilizations were like completely wiped out, apparently they found like at least 4000 documents written in Mayan language or something and only 4 survived or something...

 

I find it incredibly ironic that at least one of those the Troano manuscript is located in modern day Madrid....

 

But that just makes my point that it really just depends, on a lot of factors.

[Aimi]

Genocide doesn't require occupation at all, nor does it need a significant military or paramilitary presence, all it needs is cunning & a suitable bioweapon, after all I don't recall any large scale Salarian presence on Tuchanka, & the Salarians could so easily have irradicated the Krogan if that'd been their aim.

Leaving aside the question of whether the genophage did qualify as genocide, there is no real instance in human history of large-scale and intentional biological warfare facilitating genocide. The notion was studied and rejected by Nazi Germany because of the impossibility of controlling biological weapons and because of the uncertainty that the weapon would even be effective; the only instance that comes close is the Nazi destruction of the agro Pontino in 1943 (conducted in such a way as to spread A. labranchiae, the malaria-bearing mosquito, in the area), which was only possible on a very small scale, which required extensive preparations beforehand that would be impossible for a more widespread effort, and which probably does not qualify as genocide for a variety of reasons. Similarly, the infamous smallpox blankets of, for example, Fort Pitt are difficult to substantiate as having occurred on a significantly larger scale.

In both of those instances, the biological vector was delivered in the course of military actions; "significant military or paramilitary presence" is still valid for all of human history. It certainly describes the overwhelming majority of historical genocide, e.g. the Holocaust, or the massacres associated with the Great Lakes crisis, or the Cambodian genocide, or the Dzungar genocide, or the Armenian genocide, or the Circassian genocide...you get the idea.

Even in the case of the genophage, turians and salarians had to insert military forces onto Tuchanka to initially deploy the biological weapon, and then subsequently to maintain its effectiveness. Whether you believe that such a low investment is realistic or not (I lean toward "not") the military commitment was still there.
 

The more relevant part about the native american genocide as I recal is that it wasn't deliberate, or even purposeful- it was accidental and inadvertent thanks to disease.
 
While there are numerous recorded cases of sending smallpox blankets and such, those were after the initial wipeout. Something like, what, 99% of the north american indian population died to diseases from the first spanish expeditions centuries prior? Expeditions that in no way knew of or understood the diseases they were carying.
 
The vast majority of indians who died from smallpox never saw a European colonist, which is part of why Americans have the idea of the 'empty continent' myth of their founding. The US didn't have to conquer empires as it spread across the continent- the prior empires had already collapsed.
 
Small pox and the the settler diseases were simply that effective. They didn't need to be deliberatly spread to wipe out nearly all the local population.

The genocide of the aboriginal population of the Americas is an interesting case, because while genocide unquestionably occurred, in terms of the intentional murder of individuals on racial grounds, and while invading/settling people from across the Atlantic were the most aggressive perpetrators of genocide, most of the actual deaths were indeed due to the non-intentional spread of disease. Referring to the disease deaths as "genocide" would be like calling the Black Death "the Mongol genocide of western Eurasia", which is something basically nobody does.

[Beerfish]

With our luck we will get there slap down our flag be recognized as great heros and then find out the vikings or chinese where there 500 years earlier.

[The Dystopian Hound]

Unlike less civilized societies the MW races are more united. If they weren't they would've conquered each other years before humans arrived. Maybe a human only group like Cerberus or a milky way species only splinter group breaks off from the rest of the ark and start going after the Andromedan races but who knows.