Mass Effect General Discussion (spoilers)

I thought the series would end with the galaxy inflicting enough damage that the Reapers would retreat because they wouldn't risk their immortality.

Been replaying original trilogy and, aside from the series being pretty anti-democratic, am i the only one who was not really invested in Geth conflict and EDI being "not just machine", due to how cliche "am i a person or machine" and bland they are. Like Geth didn't have any real individuality or personality to make them interesting and EDI is pretty bland and cliche, couldn't the writers make them more "alive", like Glados and Wheatly from Portal video games.

I love the Geth, but I agree about EDI. She really annoyed me in the third game with her constant questions and I still hate that they had to give her that stupid body.

She was fine as she was in the second game.

Also, after the 100th or so time, the "That was a joke!" REALLY wasn't funny anymore.

Edited by Forenperser on Oct 3rd 2019 at 2:17:16 PM

I noticed the series anti-democracy tendencies weren't very apparent in the first game, in fact it even portrayed many of the militaristic turians as belligerent, it's 2 and 3 were it starts to shine thought I don't know if it can be blamed on EA or not.

I think it’s just a function of the story. A well-functioning democracy free of useless bureaucratic constraints doesn’t lend itself well to a scenario where you want a ragtag bunch of misfits to save the galaxy.

Also, a bunch of planet killing metal squids is a wee bit above democracy to handle.

It's rather above any government to handle. The third game makes it clear that you pretty much have no chance to beat the Reapers with anything besides the Hail Mary pass that is the Crucible.

However, the way democratic institutions are treated as an obstacle is kind of anti-democratic.

Edited by M84 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 11:15:28 PM

So you read what we said and are choosing to ignore it, is what you’re saying.

The implication here seems to be that a system besides democracy is better equipped to handle such a threat.

I've heard this sort of criticism being applied to Star Wars and, I'll be honest, I think that can be chalked up more to the Rule of Drama, where our protagonists are usually the underdogs or have significant obstacles in their ways so that they can't accomplish their goals easily. Having the government actively be helpful and supportive tends to give you a stronger hand then usual, is the assumption, I think.

However, constantly having the government be either an antagonistic force or a constant pain in the ass in stories does have a certain effect when it comes to how the public sees governments. Pretty sure we had an interesting thread about that.

I think if we're going to say if there are "anti-democratic" tendencies in this, let's see how, say, anti-democratic governments actually are portrayed in the series.

Also, going to have agree that the idea that a democracy couldn't handle the Reapers is a rather "oof" statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what type of governments did?

Edited by fredhot16 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 9:12:06 AM

Thats not what I was saying, maybe I should have been more clear.

Yeah, NO form of government is really well-equipped to deal with the reapers, including democracy, but also autocratic empires (like the Protheans in the past).

Which is why the Star Wars theory that Palpatine created the Empire to prepare the galaxy against the Yuuzhan Vong invasion is stupid.

Like no. He’s just a bad guy who wants power.

Galactic politics are kinda like the UN. And, remind me, when are we voting for our respective UN representatives, again?

Democracy, as a word, gets thrown around so often that it kinda loses meaning.

Aren’t UN representatives largely world leaders? Who democratic nations do vote for?

Also, aren't the Turians also a non-democratic empire?

None Most of the alien races in Mass Effect are not a democracy. The asari are a republic of free states similar to the Mediterranean city states of Ancient Greece, the salarians are a matriarchal political network a la Medieval Europe, and the turians are a militaristic hierarchical meritocracy. The volus are a client race of the turians, and so generally defer to them in terms of policy. As far as I'm aware none of the other races' respective governments are given that much thought other than what they're called.

EDIT: As corrected by , the asari are a democracy, but are more of a direct democracy than a representative one akin to a lot of modern countries.

Edited by ITNW1989 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 11:38:27 AM

And lets not forget the Batarians, aka Space North Korea.

The asari are stated time and time again to be democratic to a ludicrous degree.

I was about to correct myself, yes. They're not a representative democracy in the same way that a lot of modern nations are, but more of a direct democracy where everyone has a voice, though Matriarchs hold a lot of sway and influence over most other asari when it comes to debates and policy discussion.

So what is the difference between a direct and representative democracy and could one be considered superior to the other?

Representative democracy involves people voting for representatives, and said representatives partake in powers. Direct democracy involves people directly partaking in powers.

In a direct democracy, everything goes by referendum, so to speak. Representative ones can be more streamlined, but they also involve people foregoing their power into representatives, and that may be exploited. On the other hand, a direct democracy can be highly cumbersome, as it can be fickle and time-consuming, yet it is a finer example of popular power.

And as with all things, trying to make a "pure" representative democracy or a pure direct democracy both have problems. Representative democracy is slow and subject to seats getting gerrymandered into stasis, while direct democracy is subject to mob rule.

That's why real-world countries mix the two. In theory, we use the strengths from both. Obviously it doesn't always work out that way, but a mix is better than just picking one and trying to force it. We even mix in parts of non-democratic governments. The military is technically a dictatorship, but the commander in chief is democratically elected so no one minds.

The Geth are actually a direct democracy, albeit one far more efficient than exists in real life since they communicate at the speed of thought and transmit at FTL speeds. They also highlight one of the problems during Legion's loyalty mission-they get stuck close to a 50-50 split over what to do about the Heretics, and the nature of their collective precludes the tiebreakers we take for granted. They have full participation and similar enough perspectives that the slightest difference can make radical alterations, while totally lacking in authority figures that would normally act as tiebreakers or public opinion. They wind up turning to Shephard as a result.

Edited by ViperMagnum357 on Oct 3rd 2019 at 8:38:44 AM

A pure republic (ruled by representation) becomes an oligarchy controlled by the rich, because you need to own enough property to be at the head of the table. A pure democracy (ruled by popular vote) becomes anarchic as everything is decided by mob rule, accountability is absent when everyone gets a say. The hybrid system, specifically democratically elected representatives, is the only way to give the minority a chance.

Video Games in general do everything they can to give the player complete freedom of action. That's why After the End or Frontier settings are popular, as it allows you to operate without having to realistically involve law and government.

Andromeda seems to have tried that but...well...it was Andromeda.