inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 21, 2021 21:41:13 GMT
I wonder if people who say control is slavery support this by their own personal political views of anarchy and a general dislike if not out right hate of any form of government in any way shape or form. Because at worse the Reapers would act just like the Alliance or Turian Hiearchy, etc. You follow their rules and their laws and they leave you alone to live your own life. You break those rule or laws and they will come to arrest you. Forcibly or peacefully depending on your actions. If you attack the state they respond with force up to and including lethal. The more you push the more and more they push back. The average person in the Alliance might have a pistol or a rifle and maybe a barrier. The Alliance has a military with fleets of ships and weapons capable of wiping out entire cities in seconds. I don't recall the Reapers being a democratically elected body. I guess its the people of Chile's fault that they died, for going against Pinochet. I don't recall the Alliance or any other government in the galaxy being democratically elected body. Yet they enforce their rules and laws in their territory. Your real world example actually proves my point. You can also take recent events on Jan 6th in the USA. A lot of those people are being found guilty and put in prison. One woman was shot and killed for ignoring a direct order to go away. Police all over the world will use lethal force if you are engaged in behavior deemed dangerous. Democracy is pretty irrelevant to the state enforcing their own rules and laws and actively stopping you if you stray from those rule and laws. Up to the use of lethal force to assert their rule.
Stripping away the over the top hyperbole that would turn a simple slap in the face into an attempted homicide by a serial killer, the Reapers have no needs or wants so there would be no slavery. There would be rules and laws they would impose but that isn't the same as slavery. Even the Renegade Control ending has far more of a "stay in line and no problems will be had" vibe which is basically how the USA currently operates. And the USA certainly isn't into slavery. At least not by the government. Corporate wage slavery is another issue irrelevant to government.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 21, 2021 22:10:44 GMT
I don't recall the Alliance or any other government in the galaxy being democratically elected body So you're arguing that, galaxy wide, all we have are military enforced dictatorships, in complete disregard of their respective people's wishes. Wow. Mass Effect is a shit setting. |
|
inherit
60
0
628
Warrick
454
August 2016
warrick
|
Post by Warrick on Jun 21, 2021 22:34:10 GMT
The Terra Firma guy on the Citadel is running for a seat in the Alliance parliament. There is democracy.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 21, 2021 22:36:59 GMT
The Terra Firma guy on the Citadel is running for a seat in the Alliance parliament. There is democracy. Not according to some over here. If you don't see and participate in a democratic election in game, that can only mean that there is a galaxy wide dictatorship, only. Which is why it is OK to impose your will on the entire galaxy, as well. Because everyone is already OK with having no agency over their own lives.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 21, 2021 22:42:22 GMT
I don't recall the Alliance or any other government in the galaxy being democratically elected body So you're arguing that, galaxy wide, all we have are military enforced dictatorships, in complete disregard of their respective people's wishes. Wow. Mass Effect is a shit setting.
What happens if a planet or colony tried to rebel against the sitting government? According to Turian lore that is exactly what happened and the Turian government stepped in with military force to stop that.
The USA has literally had a civil war were military force was deployed on the states that seceded creating one of the bloodiest wars in US history. Killing 620,000-750,000 people in 4 years of conflict.
So you need to show how AI Shep acting as a kin to a galaxy scale regional manager allowing each race to govern it self independently as long as they don't cause trouble is some how slavery. Because that basically sounds like any individual government that gained galaxy wide control.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 21, 2021 23:02:23 GMT
So you're arguing that, galaxy wide, all we have are military enforced dictatorships, in complete disregard of their respective people's wishes. Wow. Mass Effect is a shit setting.
What happens if a planet or colony tried to rebel against the sitting government? According to Turian lore that is exactly what happened and the Turian government stepped in with military force to stop that.
The USA has literally had a civil war were military force was deployed on the states that seceded creating one of the bloodiest wars in US history. Killing 620,000-750,000 people in 4 years of conflict.
So you need to show how AI Shep acting as a kin to a galaxy scale regional manager allowing each race to govern it self independently as long as they don't cause trouble is some how slavery. Because that basically sounds like any individual government that gained galaxy wide control.
In both of those cases, there was a legal governing body, of which a portion of the population tried to secede, taking along with it land and resources that belong to the legal governing body. In the case of Shepard and the Reapers, there is no legal agreement, no contract between person and country, or even species. Without any permission, or legal procedure, a new authority is installed, galaxy wide, with no one being able to object, at the fear of complete eradication of the species daring to dispute that authority, through overwhelming arms superiority. It's more like the Blitzkrieg of the Nazi invasion of Poland. It is the conquest of a foreign entity, against its sovereignty. It's what the Conquistadors did in South America. Or what the colonists did to the North American natives. It's a conquest, not a revolution.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 21, 2021 23:43:47 GMT
What happens if a planet or colony tried to rebel against the sitting government? According to Turian lore that is exactly what happened and the Turian government stepped in with military force to stop that.
The USA has literally had a civil war were military force was deployed on the states that seceded creating one of the bloodiest wars in US history. Killing 620,000-750,000 people in 4 years of conflict.
So you need to show how AI Shep acting as a kin to a galaxy scale regional manager allowing each race to govern it self independently as long as they don't cause trouble is some how slavery. Because that basically sounds like any individual government that gained galaxy wide control.
In both of those cases, there was a legal governing body, of which a portion of the population tried to secede, taking along with it land and resources that belong to the legal governing body. In the case of Shepard and the Reapers, there is no legal agreement, no contract between person and country, or even species. Without any permission, or legal procedure, a new authority is installed, galaxy wide, with no one being able to object, at the fear of complete eradication of the species daring to dispute that authority, through overwhelming arms superiority. It's more like the Blitzkrieg of the Nazi invasion of Poland. It is the conquest of a foreign entity, against its sovereignty. It's what the Conquistadors did in South America. Or what the colonists did to the North American natives. It's a conquest, not a revolution.
The Turian colonies did not recognize the authority or legal right of the Turian Hierarchy to control them. They were quite literally invaded by a hostile power. The same thing with the American Civil War as the Confederacy no longer recognized the US government as having any legal right to control them. Quite literally it was like the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany from their perspective.
Trying to use the argument about legal contract is being extremely narrow with the definition of that. USA's history is full of example of "legal" deals with Native Americans to give up land they have been living on for generations and move to camps and other areas designated by the US government. By your reasoning everything is fine because it is all "legal" but it ignores the fact they were given the choice to accept the deal or be wiped out. In fact that was basically how the British Empire came to be were they showed up at some new country and generally out classed them with technology and took over and named it a colony subservient to the Crown. It is how the Roman Empire was build as well.
Your argument doesn't hold up under the most basic examination of world history. Unless you are saying literally every government that has ever existed is a military dictatorship.
Also can you show the evidence how and why the Reapers would need to eradicate entire species post control ending? There are far better and easier ways to achieve compliance for immortal giant space squids. Destruction of fleets and a block aid of the planet. Maybe a ground invasion of a major population center causing destruction. Maybe orbital bombardment of a major city at a push. There are countless alternatives and jumping straight to eradication of a species is like choosing to burn down your house because you have a clog in your sink.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 22, 2021 0:07:57 GMT
In both of those cases, there was a legal governing body, of which a portion of the population tried to secede, taking along with it land and resources that belong to the legal governing body. In the case of Shepard and the Reapers, there is no legal agreement, no contract between person and country, or even species. Without any permission, or legal procedure, a new authority is installed, galaxy wide, with no one being able to object, at the fear of complete eradication of the species daring to dispute that authority, through overwhelming arms superiority. It's more like the Blitzkrieg of the Nazi invasion of Poland. It is the conquest of a foreign entity, against its sovereignty. It's what the Conquistadors did in South America. Or what the colonists did to the North American natives. It's a conquest, not a revolution.
The Turian colonies did not recognize the authority or legal right of the Turian Hierarchy to control them. They were quite literally invaded by a hostile power. The same thing with the American Civil War as the Confederacy no longer recognized the US government as having any legal right to control them. Quite literally it was like the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany from their perspective.
Trying to use the argument about legal contract is being extremely narrow with the definition of that. USA's history is full of example of "legal" deals with Native Americans to give up land they have been living on for generations and move to camps and other areas designated by the US government. By your reasoning everything is fine because it is all "legal" but it ignores the fact they were given the choice to accept the deal or be wiped out. In fact that was basically how the British Empire came to be were they showed up at some new country and generally out classed them with technology and took over and named it a colony subservient to the Crown. It is how the Roman Empire was build as well.
Your argument doesn't hold up under the most basic examination of world history. Unless you are saying literally every government that has ever existed is a military dictatorship.
Also can you show the evidence how and why the Reapers would need to eradicate entire species post control ending? There are far better and easier ways to achieve compliance for immortal giant space squids. Destruction of fleets and a block aid of the planet. Maybe a ground invasion of a major population center causing destruction. Maybe orbital bombardment of a major city at a push. There are countless alternatives and jumping straight to eradication of a species is like choosing to burn down your house because you have a clog in your sink.
The only thing you've told me is you can't tell a revolution from a conquest. It's not my job to teach you things that your third grade teacher should, but didn't, so go read a book.
|
|
shotgunjulia
N2
Frustrated Golfer
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 129 Likes: 379
inherit
Frustrated Golfer
11988
0
Nov 18, 2023 22:09:24 GMT
379
shotgunjulia
129
June 2021
shotgunjulia
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by shotgunjulia on Jun 22, 2021 0:26:41 GMT
Yes, Control is a good ending. I can see how this will work out well. My galaxy. My rules.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 22, 2021 0:55:25 GMT
The Turian colonies did not recognize the authority or legal right of the Turian Hierarchy to control them. They were quite literally invaded by a hostile power. The same thing with the American Civil War as the Confederacy no longer recognized the US government as having any legal right to control them. Quite literally it was like the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany from their perspective.
Trying to use the argument about legal contract is being extremely narrow with the definition of that. USA's history is full of example of "legal" deals with Native Americans to give up land they have been living on for generations and move to camps and other areas designated by the US government. By your reasoning everything is fine because it is all "legal" but it ignores the fact they were given the choice to accept the deal or be wiped out. In fact that was basically how the British Empire came to be were they showed up at some new country and generally out classed them with technology and took over and named it a colony subservient to the Crown. It is how the Roman Empire was build as well.
Your argument doesn't hold up under the most basic examination of world history. Unless you are saying literally every government that has ever existed is a military dictatorship.
Also can you show the evidence how and why the Reapers would need to eradicate entire species post control ending? There are far better and easier ways to achieve compliance for immortal giant space squids. Destruction of fleets and a block aid of the planet. Maybe a ground invasion of a major population center causing destruction. Maybe orbital bombardment of a major city at a push. There are countless alternatives and jumping straight to eradication of a species is like choosing to burn down your house because you have a clog in your sink.
The only thing you've told me is you can't tell a revolution from a conquest. It's not my job to teach you things that your third grade teacher should, but didn't, so go read a book. The difference is who wins and gets to write the history. Hence why in the USA we have a Revolutionary War and a Civil War. Because the colonies won the civil war it became a revolutionary war. Because the south lost the civil war it was no longer a revolutionary war but a civil war.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 22, 2021 1:02:54 GMT
The difference is who wins and gets to write the history. Hence why in the USA we have a Revolutionary War and a Civil War. Because the colonies won the civil war it became a revolutionary war. Because the south lost the civil war it was no longer a revolutionary war but a civil war. So the German invasion of Poland was a civil war, is what you're saying. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 22, 2021 2:01:24 GMT
The difference is who wins and gets to write the history. Hence why in the USA we have a Revolutionary War and a Civil War. Because the colonies won the civil war it became a revolutionary war. Because the south lost the civil war it was no longer a revolutionary war but a civil war. So the German invasion of Poland was a civil war, is what you're saying. Had Germany won WW2? Yes. We already have a modern day example of this with Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Crimea. You ask Putin and he will claim they are simply reclaiming former Russian territory. You ask people in the Ukraine and their nation was invaded.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
If Terra Nova took up arms in open rebellion against the Alliance they would absolutely respond with military force to put down the rebellion and reestablish their control of the planet. And the Alliance would absolutely pain the rebellion in a negative light and it would become a foot note in history at best.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Nov 26, 2024 11:47:29 GMT
36,896
colfoley
19,127
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jun 22, 2021 2:58:33 GMT
I appreciate the argument it is one that is rattling around my head every time I do pick to Destroy the Reapers...but that also does not address the main point about a Renegade Shepard. A Paragon Shepard *may* be fine, and even that is taking a hell of a gamble...but a Renegade Shep? And especially one that is a self aware Renegade Shep? There are two basic problems with this argument: 1. This assumes that the Paragon choice is always blue and is always the 'upper' choice on the dialogue wheel. I know this may be weird given that A. it kinda is and B. that is how they are coding it in the Descision Chamber...but the idea of Control being the Paragon choice itself is a bit of a stretch. 2. This assumes that all Paragon Shepard's have the same morality and that morality as an metaphysical excercise is ironclad...and that Paragon always means the 'good guy' thing to do and Renegade 'the bad guy thing'. And yes admittedly BioWare didn't always do a good job implenting these systems through the series but neither of these things are a given. A Paragon Shepard could conclude that Control is just as Renegade as either Control or Synethesis. Afterall it does involve brainwashing a sentient machine race into serving your every whim...sure a race of death robots but still. And on top of that the risk that 'absolute power corrupts absolutley.' Either one of these moral issues can make the choice a difficult one for a Paragon Shepard to chose Control. Now Destroy isn't much of a better option in this regard but that does not automatically make Control an option that every Paragon Shepard would find pallatable...let alone Synthesis. I understand... and that's why I don't always choose Control; but the player knows their Shepard since they spent 3 games building his/her personality. I look at the choice as a test of confidence in the Shepard you made. If you don't trust him/her, then choose something else.
Most of all, I think preservation of the option for the player to choose whatever ending they feel most comfortable with is paramount. On the surface they may not seem very different, but they are. They can make one think about their belief system. I don't think anyone on Earth can "solve for world peace" IRL; but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about it. That's what I love about the Mass Effect Trilogy and ME:A... Despite each games flaws, they make me think about the world we do live in... every single time.
The thing with Renegade control is that it still doesn't destroy the millenia of knowledge that got the current cycle to the point of being able to overthrow the Catalyst and take him out of power... So, even if renegade The Shepard turns out to be another bugged AI, the organics are in a better position to overthrow him than they would be should some equally bad "alien" influence hit the galaxy after the Destroy ending is deployed. Destroy destroys that hard-won knowledge... and that's why, of all three endings, it's the one I almost never choose. It's scorched earth at its worst.
You know the more I read on these opinions the more I am reminded of the Sphere data for Discovery. All that galactic knowledge and Discovery was facing kind of the same choice in that episode on whether or not to destroy it. I was already considering changing my canon Shepard's end choice to Control anyways and you may have just convinced me...its certainly another avenue worth considering in the whole debate. Going back to the point on whether or not people's decision to choose destroy is motivated by a desire to save their Shepard or not and well, I know this probably goes against Bio's vision of Control and everything but given what we know about reaper tech this is not that much of a stretch...but I have always maintained it that when Cameron controls the Reapers he fixes the damage done and then flies them all into the sun while creating a clone body of himself. We know the Reapers can do such a thing like that. The biggest obstacles are, as is being discussed right now 'is that Shepard' and B whether or not Shepard's expanded intellect can fit into a clone body. But assuming those obstacles can be accounted for...why not. Though of course now one has to 'save' the data from the Reapers...which of course this also might match my headcannon for my post ME 3 fan fic better too given how vauge I left it to the fate of the Reapers.  . I suppose another option, outside of the fan fic, the Shepalyst would have their cake and eat it to, create a clone Shepard but leave the Reapers alive under its influence. Can you imagine my Shepard controlling the reapers? hahahahahahaha. My Shepard liked working with Cerberus. It would have the reapers help rebuild all human colonies, and Earth. It would leave a couple of reapers behind for humans to study, then fly the rest of the reapers into the nearest sun. Humanity becomes top dog in the galaxy, most likely the universe. excellent. TIM would be proud.   Personally, I would have left your Shepard to rot in the detention center and enlisted James or even Liara to lead the charge to unite the galaxy to fight the reaper threat. That is a game I'd want to play. I wonder if people who say control is slavery support this by their own personal political views of anarchy and a general dislike if not out right hate of any form of government in any way shape or form. Because at worse the Reapers would act just like the Alliance or Turian Hiearchy, etc. You follow their rules and their laws and they leave you alone to live your own life. You break those rule or laws and they will come to arrest you. Forcibly or peacefully depending on your actions. If you attack the state they respond with force up to and including lethal. The more you push the more and more they push back. The average person in the Alliance might have a pistol or a rifle and maybe a barrier. The Alliance has a military with fleets of ships and weapons capable of wiping out entire cities in seconds. Not neccessarily. OK lets break this down. 1. 'At worse' the Reapers could be far worse then the Turian Hiearchy and Alliance based on pure firepower. The Hiearchy and the Alliance does have a lot of military prowess in response and...to a later post...you are right combine that to the 'common soldier' and a 'common individual human' would have just as much chance against an Alliance Dreadnought as a Reaper one but there if the humans pool their resources and get together they could effect change. Against the Reapers, well at such an apex predator where entire Species would have to bown down and submit...because they are on the same scale as a soldier to an Alliance warship...then that changes the ballgame. 2. As discussed a Reaper AI, even one controlled by Shepard, could enforce their will in such a way as to be tyranical. Yes there is the off chance that the Reapers as the galactic council may promote peace and harmony but there is a non zero chance that such an organization would decide 'you know what the Asari don't need to exist today' and wiipe them out. 3. One of the things that can, at least in theory, prevent the Alliance or Turian heiarchy from becoming too tyrannical (though what happens in 2 might make this a moot point) is the idea that each species is made up of dozens of billions, possibily trillions, of invididuals. Each with their own opinion. If an Alliance Admiral orders an Alliance Captain to just wipe out Terra Nova for no reason that Captain can refuse that order. The Reapers meanwhile no longer shows that kind of individualism, they are all bound to the AI of a single governing authority so if Shepard decides 'hey lets wipe out Thessia today' then they would comply.
|
|
inherit
The Smiling Knight
538
0
24,097
smilesja
14,567
August 2016
smilesja
|
Post by smilesja on Jun 22, 2021 3:08:16 GMT
As opposed to what though? Being dead? Speaking of people having the right to choose their fate whilst supporting Destroy which kills all the Geth who came to fight the Reapers in common cause because you specifically assured them you would and do not accept the notion that organic life matters more than synthetic life is absolutely outrageous. The Geth and EDI repeatedly tell you they are *not* cool with dying or 'taking one for the team' to make organics feel safer. Destroy sees you betray that promise and is completely at odds with the stats that show 94% of players are Paragon. Some paragons, throwing their allies under the bus to save their own skin. As I've said over and over and over, this whole debate could have been solved by Sheperd living in every ending. The starkid says 'I was testing to see what choice you'd make if you thought you were going to die anyway'. Boom. Done. Endings are still lame but nobody gets truly mad anymore because they have freedom to choose without losing their character. Because no matter what they say, that *is* the sticking point for most - they knew they were commiting a dishonourable, self serving and treacherous act but they wanted to live so they picked Destroy and blamed Bioware for 'forcing' them to do it. Because BW had shilled Sheperd so hard for 3 games that they literally couldn't accept that he'd die because heroes never lose and all that crap. Control. Probably the tamest of the options but you are still trusting Shepard, a character with Renegade tendencies, to not go really off the reservation and enforce their will on the galaxy that way and just become Catalyst 2.0. Control is basically putting the galaxy in a police state regardless of Shep's intentions. These are nigh invulnerable beings that took out galaxies and it's being lead by an AI who may go rouge like the Catalyst did. Whos to say that the people will even accept the Reapers watching over them after they drove them to near extinction?
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Nov 26, 2024 11:47:29 GMT
36,896
colfoley
19,127
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Jun 22, 2021 3:11:00 GMT
Control. Probably the tamest of the options but you are still trusting Shepard, a character with Renegade tendencies, to not go really off the reservation and enforce their will on the galaxy that way and just become Catalyst 2.0. Control is basically putting the galaxy in a police state regardless of Shep's intentions. These are nigh invulnerable beings that took out galaxies and it's being lead by an AI who may go rouge like the Catalyst did. Whos to say that the people will even accept the Reapers watching over them after they drove them to near extinction? That is the flip side of the coin. At least in popular fiction does tend to portray people rebelling against even benign dictatorships just because they are there or overbearing, and usually being right. Hell that would actually become the ultimate irony too when a benign Paragon Shep still has to wipe out most of the galaxy out of sheer self defense.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 22, 2021 3:30:34 GMT
I wonder if people who say control is slavery support this by their own personal political views of anarchy and a general dislike if not out right hate of any form of government in any way shape or form. Because at worse the Reapers would act just like the Alliance or Turian Hiearchy, etc. You follow their rules and their laws and they leave you alone to live your own life. You break those rule or laws and they will come to arrest you. Forcibly or peacefully depending on your actions. If you attack the state they respond with force up to and including lethal. The more you push the more and more they push back. The average person in the Alliance might have a pistol or a rifle and maybe a barrier. The Alliance has a military with fleets of ships and weapons capable of wiping out entire cities in seconds. Not neccessarily. OK lets break this down. 1. 'At worse' the Reapers could be far worse then the Turian Hiearchy and Alliance based on pure firepower. The Hiearchy and the Alliance does have a lot of military prowess in response and...to a later post...you are right combine that to the 'common soldier' and a 'common individual human' would have just as much chance against an Alliance Dreadnought as a Reaper one but there if the humans pool their resources and get together they could effect change. Against the Reapers, well at such an apex predator where entire Species would have to bown down and submit...because they are on the same scale as a soldier to an Alliance warship...then that changes the ballgame. 2. As discussed a Reaper AI, even one controlled by Shepard, could enforce their will in such a way as to be tyranical. Yes there is the off chance that the Reapers as the galactic council may promote peace and harmony but there is a non zero chance that such an organization would decide 'you know what the Asari don't need to exist today' and wiipe them out. 3. One of the things that can, at least in theory, prevent the Alliance or Turian heiarchy from becoming too tyrannical (though what happens in 2 might make this a moot point) is the idea that each species is made up of dozens of billions, possibily trillions, of invididuals. Each with their own opinion. If an Alliance Admiral orders an Alliance Captain to just wipe out Terra Nova for no reason that Captain can refuse that order. The Reapers meanwhile no longer shows that kind of individualism, they are all bound to the AI of a single governing authority so if Shepard decides 'hey lets wipe out Thessia today' then they would comply.
By the same logic the Alliance could become an oppressive dictatorship that uses mass murder and ethnic cleansing to maintain fear and control. Not hesitating to wipe out entire cities at the slightest push back. The question is how much proof to have to support that claim. Given the Reapers only chose the harvest cycle as literal last resort it is safe to say they wouldn't mass slaughter at their first responds to issues. You claim it would be tyrannical but you don't really go into detail how with any supporting evidence to claim it. Why would Shep AI wipe out Thessia one day?
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 22, 2021 5:20:59 GMT
So the German invasion of Poland was a civil war, is what you're saying. Had Germany won WW2? Yes.
So you don't know what a Civil war is, either.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 22, 2021 11:18:21 GMT
Had Germany won WW2? Yes.
So you don't know what a Civil war is, either.
Now you tell me why is it call the American Revolutionary War when in fact it was a civil war between British Citizens? Why Russia treats Crimea as a revolution while the rest of the Ukraine treats it as a conquest? Also I can't help but laugh that you have basically abandoned your entire original point and never seem to actually address or acknowledge my real world examples which directly contradict your own statements.
History is full of myths and altered history to fit what people wanted to happen rather then what most likely did.
History plus time plus politics/personal views equals altered history and this has always been the case. Fuck there are large groups of people who still think the Confederacy wasn't about slavery but states rights. Even though literally every single document we have that they wrote about put slavery as the main reason for their actions. So it was the state's right to own slaves but they remove that aspect that they didn't like and resulted with just states rights.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 22, 2021 13:08:30 GMT
a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country So which country do the Turians share with the Reapers? How about the Asari? The Salarians? So you're telling me this isn't the civil war you claimed? So this is an expansive war. A war of Conquest. Not only that, but a war that will result in the complete eradication of all the people of the Milky Way. And how is surrendering to them, which is effectively what the control ending is, a good thing? Basically, what you have is an occupation. A Reaper occupation of the Milky Way. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Jun 22, 2021 14:27:32 GMT
a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country So which country do the Turians share with the Reapers? How about the Asari? The Salarians? Show me the legal right the Turian, Asari and Salarian have to planets other then showing up and planting a flag on them and using their military to enforce their claim on the planet?
You said civil war not me. All I said was that the victors write the history.
Conquest literally means territory has been subjugated by military force. So by definition the Unification War the Turians waged was technically a conquest.
: to gain or acquire by force of arms : subjugate conquer territory to overcome by force of arms : vanquish to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition
Your attempts at being a nit-picky pedantic argument is undermined by the literal definition of words.
Going to need a source on that one. And no "I think" head canon BS because you have already openly rejected my similar use of that before. You need hard factual details to back this up supported by in game.
If you are referring to the harvest cycle then you really are desperate and moving that goal post ever so slightly. They do not eradicate all people only races of sufficient technological advancement. Which is why humanity exists in the game because the Reapers bypassed Earth because we were still living in caves. Second their reason for that was due to issues between synthetic and organic life which the Quarians and Geth are living proof of concepts. Were the Geth in just 2 years eliminated 95% of the Quarian population. Dropping them from a few billion to a few million.
Well for starters they are more trust worthy then politicians. They have no need for direct interference outside of helping guide races to peace. They operate on the same level of conflict deterrent as the Treaty of Farixen does. Which basically says for every 4 dreadnoughts the Turians have the Asari and Salarians can have 2 and all other races can have 1. Which ensures in any conflict the Turians, Asari and Salarians have the advantage. Millions of years of observation and data gathering on the development of thousands of different species means they would be able to plot developments of races and plan accordingly for it. Including highlighting issues before they become major problems.
|
|
inherit
9459
0
Nov 24, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
5,628
SirSourpuss
7,694
Oct 16, 2017 16:19:07 GMT
October 2017
sirpetrakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by SirSourpuss on Jun 22, 2021 15:24:00 GMT
Show me the legal right the Turian, Asari and Salarian have to planets other then showing up and planting a flag on them and using their military to enforce their claim on the planet? So you don't even know how a nation is formed. This ... I'm surprised we even manage to communicate, at all, at this point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
11521
0
Nov 26, 2024 11:47:42 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 26, 2024 11:47:42 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2021 22:08:10 GMT
Show me the legal right the Turian, Asari and Salarian have to planets other then showing up and planting a flag on them and using their military to enforce their claim on the planet? So you don't even know how a nation is formed. This ... I'm surprised we even manage to communicate, at all, at this point. Why even waste your time? It is ridiculous... I am not even entertained at this point, I just feel numb.
Such verbosity, without a valid point ever. Poorly informed didacticism trying strangely to be a dialectic argument. The issue is, without a proper understanding of the simple base terms used, everything is a misunderstanding. It is all very odd, and at this point not worthy of any of our time to be engaged with seriously - in my opinion.
|
|
Monica21
N3
Chaotic Good
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 586 Likes: 1,434
inherit
4858
0
Sept 16, 2021 21:34:12 GMT
1,434
Monica21
Chaotic Good
586
Mar 17, 2017 19:49:37 GMT
March 2017
monica21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Monica21 on Jun 22, 2021 22:50:48 GMT
So you don't even know how a nation is formed. This ... I'm surprised we even manage to communicate, at all, at this point. Why even waste your time? It is ridiculous... I am not even entertained at this point, I just feel numb.
Such verbosity, without a valid point ever. Poorly informed didacticism trying strangely to be a dialectic argument. The issue is, without a proper understanding of the simple base terms used, everything is a misunderstanding. It is all very odd, and at this point not worthy of any of our time to be engaged with seriously - in my opinion.
I blocked him years ago and I'm not only surprised to still see him around, but that everyone else hasn't blocked him. |
|
inherit
3408
0
Jun 28, 2021 11:43:33 GMT
206
marshalmoriarty
126
February 2017
marshalmoriarty
|
Post by marshalmoriarty on Jun 22, 2021 22:59:21 GMT
Monica - you prove my point (and the Reapers' point whilst we're at it). You're clearly a Renegade player and thus my original assessment that your word can't be trusted and a traitor to your allies stands. I don't miss that its a version of peace - its just not a Paragon one and (to restate again because you completely misunderstood) is therefore of no relevance whatsoever to the point I was discussing and you replied to. Nobody needs an explanation for why a Renegade player would choose Destroy or betray their allies. Its entirely in character and what they should do. But since that applies to less than 10% of players and the number of people who choose Destroy is so much higher, that is where the hypocrisy lies and what I am talking about. Renegade players are irrelevent. I'm sorry if that sounds blunt, its unfortunate but its the truth - there are simply too few of you for what you choose to matter or why you chose it. Renegade players are pretty well served in the Endings since Control and Destroy are both Renegade options. If more players were Renegade players, people would have been far less upset as they like you would cheerfully have slaughtered their allies, lived and been cool with that. But they weren't, as we all know. Your sweeping conclusions about my playthroughs, which are actually quite varied because I don't like replaying the same Shepard, is getting really annoying. I've played all kinds and chosen all endings more than once and for different reasons. The game allows the player to make multiple choices for multiple reasons, and you personally don't get to decide that fundamentally altering all life in the galaxy in order to save one kind of life is the only Paragon decision. I think that forcing all life to become part computer is the worst violation of bodily autonomy I've ever seen in fiction and ranks up there with war crimes, so your perfect ending is my nightmare, and is a Renegade decision. If you value your allies then you value them all equally and should understand that altering what it means to be human or turian or asari and instead just blends life into a synthetic numbness is a violating your word to all your allies, and not just one. But that's just what I think and why I rarely choose Synthesis.
In your game do whatever you want and for whatever reasons you want, but you don't get to make that choice for other players. I make choices for my own reasons, so do not apply the logic you apply to your games to my games.
I have made no 'sweeping conclusions' about your playthroughs - I confined myself to pointing out the cowardice and dishonour in the actions you espoused and described them as actions a Renegade player would take. If you don't like it then that's just tough. If you didn't want to call my attention to your stated actions then you shouldn't have put them forward in reply to me. I have the right to comment on them, and you're certainly feeling free to comment on mine. Even though you continually misread and misunderstand - at no point did I ever suggest that you must do anything (unless you quote that 1 line in the 2nd paragraph completely out of context anyway - I would hardly be ordering you to pick the choice you already chose after all! I was simply saying Destroy is an understandable choice for Renegade players that makes sense to me if they pick it) . You made your choices as is your right, No problem with that whatsoever. Its my right in an open forum however to offer an assessment of those choices and the merits\flaws of the reasons given. I simply pointed out the cowardice and lies you told your allies before knowingly choosing to kill them when you had 2 other options not to and how distasteful I find it to act like that. Its my opinion yes and I freely admit to not being a Renegade player but I'm allowed to have that opinion and voice it. Doesn't affect your choices and your right to choose them one bit. Like I say, I can absolutely understand Renegades behaving like that. Mercifully that applies to very few people. But this is all besides my original point. As I have told you repeatedly now. And though you have twice misunderstood maybe you'll finally understand when I say yet again that I have *no issue* with Renegade players playing in a Renegade manner. It was not what I was talking about earlier and thus your actions and stance were and are of *no relevance* to any of what I was saying. Can you understand that?! I neither needed nor was asking for justifications from Renegade players for choosing Destroy. Its what I expect them to do for the (incorrect IMO but still your right to believe in) reasons you give. For the last time, my comments were aimed at the bulk of the playerbase who the stats show play Paragon, get Joker and EDI together and organize peace between the Quarians and Geth, yet still choose Destroy. Killing people they allied with in good faith just to save yourselves when they specifically rejected that action. It does not qpply to your playthrough as explained by you. Your word counts for nothing, you're willing to betray and kill your allies - you're no Paragon clearly. Paragons don't murder their allies, much less when they swore to those same allies not to. Nor do they look at 3 options and regardless of their attitude to Synthesis pick the 1 option which leads to that betrayal and murder. A Renegade does that - a person who only values victory,even if it means killing allies who trusted you not to do this. You in other words, at least with the views you have put forward. I mean... 'value all your allies equally'?! From the person who kills all their synthetic allies - ALL of them, and *none* of their organic allies?! If that's equality then its strictly along Q's definition of fair and equitable... You opened the door to this by replying. If you put information out there and further to that reply directly to me, its my right to say what I think of that. None of it is binding, none of it is forcing anyone to do anything despite your false claims to the contrary. You stuck your oar in on an issue that had nothing to do with the playstyle you outlined. Nobody ever claimed you didn't have the right to make your choices. I respect your right to do so. I just don't respect anything about the choices themselves.
|
|
inherit
10454
0
Apr 12, 2024 18:34:23 GMT
304
mtheillusive
169
Aug 29, 2018 17:14:05 GMT
August 2018
mtheillusive
|
Post by mtheillusive on Jun 23, 2021 0:22:40 GMT
Control is slavery....WHAT???? Where are people getting this from? Control means Shep controls the Reapers. That's it. He/She has become something more, a cosmic being in a sense. The ending is like a mix of Captain Sisko (Emissary of the Prophets, where he moves beyond being human) and Picard (Locutus, to a lesser extent). What they decide to do with the Reapers is up to them. Have no interaction with humanity at all after fixing the relays? Stand guard on the far unreachable edges of dark space? Explore the universe and travel to other galaxies? Decide to destroy the Reapers while their conscience remains intact? Look into this alleged dark matter issue and try to figure it out? There like a million things that Control can lead to other than...slavery. Thats a very limited and short sighted view. Hell personally I enjoyed control cause it made a new beginning for Shep. As if the entire trilogy was just the prologue to their now cosmic adventure. And speaking of endings, as I've said before, on a LONG TERM basis, all of them could lead to the same result in starting a new game if its further in the future. With destroy, obviously there are some things to work with there as they rebuild the galaxy, which could take centuries. With control, Shep could easily just disappear, or decide to destroy the reapers after repairing things in the galaxy. Leads to the same result. With synthesis, there can easily be a consensus or a schism to turn things back to the way they were before (for VARIOUS reasons), and they ...well...do that. With refuse....people say Shep only survives destroy...well, we never actually see them die in Refuse, and we have no idea how far in the future (if in the future at all) Liara's recording is. There are SOOOOOOOO many possibilites with each ending and people are very short sighted to what could be possible. Grow an imagination!  Yeesh! |
|
. I suppose another option, outside of the fan fic, the Shepalyst would have their cake and eat it to, create a clone Shepard but leave the Reapers alive under its influence. 
Yeesh!