yeah, things like gamestop pre-order bonuses and all that stuff could sway certain balances and such. MAG had gamestop as giving SVER improved armor for MAG, gamestop being the most popular video game store gave SVER players a huge advantage and a lot of people joined SVER and got the better armor, while the other factions had less popular stores giving them the special armor. All of that type of stuff could cause the balance to be thrown off a bit. Player maturity is the main one for me though in Brink, as younger players (young teenagers and below) who on average I think are less talented or less team oriented then older gamers (18-25) may choose resistance due to the look that they have (just my opinion). I would love to be Resistance so i could make my character look like some guy from Road Warrior, however I believe what I said above to be true, so I will choose Security.

I've talked with a ton of people over 18 that wants to be Resistance; more then people who want to be Security, in fact. If player maturity is a factor for you, the PC version of Brink would be best, as younger players frequent consoles.

Haha ah the "generation gap" between PC's and Console's... sad yet true. At least I can rest, assured that I won't have to play someone that has the Wii version.

I would die of laughter.

Ima gonna make muh guy like Mario!

and my friend is gonna makeuh Loo-gie....lolwtfbbq

well, its impossible to read everything available... but i have read everything easily accessible and most of what has been typed in response to my posts have no support from what i've seen...

So tell me what it is in my post that you feel lacks support and give me a day at most. I usually avoid sourcing because its such a pain to remember what info came from where, but everything I say is based on interviews.

The fact is, SD has done their best to make players on both sides feel morally correct. If you think that one side is incorrect then that alone shows that you don't really understand the storyline as well as you think you do.

Shadowcat's a Brink scholar...he's right in his argument. And his posts are completely supported from the little bit of information Splash has released. They have intended for both factions to fall into a moral grey area, and avoid the usual cliches of "good vs. bad."

Security - I'm not a communist.

So you believe in an aristocratic government such as that seen in the Middle Ages then, do you?

Hey Sausage- I'm Security too(although I'm playing both) but the Resistance is not "communist" just because they want a more fair distribution of resources. Actually, one of the best ways to survive in the long term in a post-apocalyptic world would probably be to go communist without an aristocracy. That way, everyone would get the same amount of the already dwindling food and water there is. Of course, everyone looks at this in different ways, and that's where the argument comes in. I know some people who hate communism just because their parents grew up in the cold war, afraid of a "commie nuke" going off in the distance. If used right, communism can be okay; but it's usually used to keep people inferior to the higher aristocracy.
Sorry about that, but apparently it needed a little explaining.

Communism without an aristocracy is socialism, which is the closest term I can think of to the goals of the resistance. Ideally, socialism would have everyone doing the same work getting everything they need and not having any leaders. It only really works on small scale. Whether the Ark with its 50k people could adopt such a plan is a good question.

Well, that really all depends on who wins the Civil War, now doesn't it?

Well, actually we don't know if the Resistance is socialist or democratic. All Splash Damage is really telling us is that they want a fairer distribution of resources. That could mean either.

Actually, the current organization of things as I understand them is quite close to communism. A dictatorship at the very least. You have an oppressed majority doing equal work for an equal pay, and a better off minority in control. Either way i would say that security is closer to communism than the resistance is.

One could argue that security is based on an objectivist society, such as that found in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism is the polar opposite of communism, pure laissez faire theory. One's self interest and pursuit of happiness is placed above all else, even the welfare of others. The founders see that they were the only ones able to create the Ark or afford to live by it, and according to social Darwinism, should thereby be the only ones able to live comfortably on it. The founders are the best of the best, and they lived on the Ark to get away from the lower classes that plagued the rest of the world.

Good point, Shadowcat! I hadn't really thought about that. The Security does seem communist. Then come the Resistance who just want fairness and equality. Are the Resistance going to be the new Security when they win? Will they go communist too, or will they bring about an era of democracy and real equality?

Interesting, but I'm not so sure that the founders are all that more comfortable that the resistance. In one interview, the term "better use of their resources" came up, pointing out that the upper ark just LOOKS like they have more, and the founders are in fact being rationed as well. I doubt that the founders are as hard pressed as the refugees, however. So it seems like it comes down to what are the leaders of the founders trying to pass it off as? Are they saying "you can have what we can spare" or "we are trying to be as fair or equal as possible"?


Well, true communism IS equal, more equal than democracy. The problem is the humans element. Humans in charge can be come corrupt and usually don't make themselves equal to those not in control. Workers stop working as hard since they don't get any reward for doing more than is necessary.

Yes, communism/socialism is more equal, but in a democracy, there are more choices and more freedom. In communism, you're a nuclear engineer and you have the same crap as the other guy who is a janitor, and you both get the same crap. In a democracy, you get more or less based on your job, the economy... Pretty much America but with the vote, the way countries are run... A whole other story. Basically, they;re different with pros and cons.

And in a situation where you're on a floating island with barely enough resources to go around, less even, I should think that everyone having enough food and water to survive would be more important than having a comfortable nuclear engineer. Democratic Socialism, perhaps, but socialism would be the way to go.

Yes, I totally agree! I was simply using a real-world example. In ideal circumstances, socialism would be good. But humans just have to have it all, and that's when socialism > communism > dictatorship :chaos:

Socialism actually works in small groups. Decisions are usually made as a group. The problems is that group decisions are hard to make as the group grows larger. So communism was born, putting one man in control of it all, which always seems to lead to dictatorship, as you so simply put it.

But yea, small towns historically managed to take care of everyone, even if one person had their crops go bad.

That's why democracy works. It is natural for humans to strive for power. Its happened in history millions of times. Democracy works to use ambition, instead of fighting against it. Let us say there is a representative who wants to be president. How would he accomplish this? By being a star representative, doing the best he can to earn the love and respect of the people. So democracy harnesses the natural greed and ambition of individuals and forces them to use their goals to help out society as a whole.

There was a point made in an article I read a while back that was put well enough that I'm just gonna quote it.

"Saying "power corrupts" is stating something so obvious we feel stupid even typing it. It's like saying elevators elevate. If you found out tomorrow your congressman was caught firing orphans out of a cannon, you'd barely raise an eyebrow.

The thing is, it's the desire itself that's poisonous. You find that need for power most in the type of person who hates having to obey all of society's social contracts, particularly the ones that require them to not act like cocks all day. These are the people who are only nice guys because of fear of retribution if they do otherwise, so their main goal is to become strong enough that no retribution is possible (this is why sociopaths tend to seek positions of power, by the way).

So it's not just that power will destroy you. It's that the urge itself is bad news. That desire for power is a vicious, ravenous animal and feeding it only makes it strong enough to tear its way out of your belly and go on a bloody rampage." (http://www.cracked.com/article_17061_reminder-5-things-you-think-will-make-you-happy-but-wont.html)

Basically, power doesn't change or corrupt people, it just allows people to act the way they have always wanted to.

That's the beauty of a democracy. Whatever their own personal motives are, leaders in a democracy are forced to accomplish things for the good of the people if they want power themselves. And when they reach that position of power, where they think they can "act the way they have always wanted to," they quite simply can't. Checks and balances, baby, checks and balances.

Resistance

I have always loved the apocalyptic rough earthy look...