itsamoose

I've been thinking about Clyde's religion analogy, and I think that is a fantastic way of approaching the subject, or at least thinking about it. Much like religion, gender exists across various cultures and times, with a basis in the natural world with perhaps similar themes throughout but the dogma being inconsistent and tendencies being parallel. Also Gender it seems, much like religion, is more a matter of will than a matter of fact and it's expression subject to the whims of the day. For example singing and dancing were once seen as gentlemanly and masculine in the US, but are now seen as effeminate. Also it might explain my aversion or malaise in regards to the topic, but that is more of a personal thing. I have nothing more to add at this time, I just wanted to mention I really like that insight.

This is usually something I find is a weird dynamic in any conversation about gender, and something I've been thinking about lately, mainly in the difference between scientific gender and cultural gender (for lack of better terms). In essence, the scientific definition of gender exists for the purpose of objectivity in experimentation-- for the purposes of any experiment a "male" is an organism with an XY sex chromosome, and a "female" is one with an XX chromosome. That's not to say that any differences must or will exist based on that distinction, but that that distinction is a useful and ultimately necessary tool for biological experimentation. I think that this hard lined definition, which exists for a distinct purpose alone, and explicitly for the purpose of discrimination in biology, for many people then becomes the basis by which social concepts associated with biological genders are also defined. In that case, again in the course of experimentation, different discrimination can and would apply to the various subject groups. This is why every serious scientific study will start with a definition of terms just like a legal document, in order to preserve objectivity in the methodology. I don't want to get too far afield here, since this is sort of a different topic than masculinity, but I think it's the primary failure of most discussions I've had on topics like this that the thing itself isn't defined. For example, from the first couple of posts here it seems like Clyde views masculinity as a thing that is, or is done, whereas your view seems to be that masculinity is a perspective of a thing (assuming I'm not reading too far into the posts) which is a discussion worth having. That's not to say that one of those is right and the other isn't but rather that an agreement of the definition (or at least the parameters of the discussion) is warranted before the discussion can be had in a way that can be expounded upon. Then again my background is in the sciences, as is my manner of thinking, so perhaps this sort of exercise would ultimately unnecessarily limit the discussion to a particular viewpoint or create that same undesirable scenario where one thing is right and the other isn't.

Given my information may be out of date, but it was my understanding that the XYY chromosome as being linked to a sort of "super male" genetic archetype has been lately debunked. Not only do individuals with this chromosomal anomaly exhibit similar testosterone levels than XY males, but in general relative concentration of testosterone hasn't been linked to aggression in the way one would expect. On the other hand, fluctuations in T levels have been shown to result in mood swings, which are most common in anabolic steroid users. As people use these hormones their own bodies produce less, and when they go off their bodies they have an abnormally low T level (for the individual) which has been linked to aggressive response. In general though, testosterone is most strongly linked to seconds sex characteristics such as facial hair, body odor, musculature, and so on. It might be that aggression is typically associated with these aspects (as it has strong ties to mating behavior in all mammal species) which is typically something males of the species do. Also touching on the point of behavioral science, it is important to note that individual behaviors are the result of specific motivations more so than biological processes. The reason I bring this up is that there is a tendency to ascribe behaviors to biological processes and ultimately marginalize the effect of stimuli on those responses.

I still play a couple times a weeks and I'm generally enjoying the new mechanics and cards available. I've seen a lot of new interactions with cards and mechanics that make the game more exciting, but my one reservation is that the game seems to become and even more solitary experience. With all the new card combos possible, particularly with respect to quests, the game more often feels like you and your opponent are racing to fulfill some goal rather than playing against each other. The quests aren't designed in such a way that avenues for engagement even exist for the opposing player (save perhaps for the rogue quest) which can lead to situations where you don't really need to consider your opponent's plays. In other words, the new stuff has improved what hearthstone was good at before, but also makes it's detriments that much more noticable.

To be fair, doesn't valve have the right to determine what they think is a game? Just because you have a storefront, doesn't mean you have to sell everyone's products in it. What is so wrong with Valve determining what a product they are willing to sell should be, and make their rules accordingly? While it might seem like valve is intentionally silencing people, what they are proposing really is a watered down version of what every other storefront requires--and a more democratic one at that. While there exist a demonstrable strain of abuse in it's execution, Valve's system might be the most open of all the major platforms. Apple regularly prevents games from being sold on their platform due to it's subject matter, and developers sometimes have their games pulled off the marketplace without warning for any reason up to and including Apple just felt like it. I won't claim to know their intentions, but Valve's system seems to be a distinct and exacting response to this, where the users are able to have some say in the market's function. I know this is a pretty unpopular idea around here, but there is a lot of good that comes out of that system. We tend to focus on the bad, mostly because it's particularly appalling, but for every Zoe Quinn or Briana Wu there are a dozen or more developers who can run their businesses and feed their families due to this exact direction, and they are worth considering too. Maybe valve's changes will lead to certain games not being sold on steam, but in the long run this sounds like a wonderful thing to me. Not every TV channel needs to show the same types of content, and not every online marketplace needs to sell all the same things. After watching Sterling and Bain's videos, it's clear to me that when valve says "fake games' what they are referring to specifically, are more akin to art forgeries. Not games made with store bought assets or simplistic mechanics, but those that are primarily born of another's work without credit. Most games made with Unity today use the same plugins and technical features, but it doesn't sound to me like this is what causes valve to consider them "fake games". Also on the point about their influence, let's remember that valve is staffed by some of the most intelligent people in the industry who spend all day thinking about these issues. I very much doubt Sterling and Bain told Valve anything they didn't already know, and their influence is likely far less than their egos would lead them to believe.

Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo don't have this problem because they effectively have a top down approach to allowing games onto their marketplace. Just as an example, here are the two processes we went through in getting our game on PS4 and Steam PS4: - Get registered as a developer with sony - Get Devkits from sony to develop on their platform - Get license from Unity to be able to deploy and publish games on a PS4 - Submit game for a cert process - Release game - Any patches need to go through another cert process, which includes the game being perfectly functional with any combination of patches installed. Steam: - Get registered as a developer with steam - Get approval to be on the marketplace - Release game - Patches are released at the developer's discretion Valve does take a lot of flak for attempting to democratize that system, but there is value in that expansion. This process does ensure quality, but it's often the reason things come late or even not at all to the consoles such as the case with Diablo's seasons feature or that situation with Phil Fish. While there are a lot of games that make their way onto the marketplace that shouldn't, it also creates a space for games like Stardew Valley, Undertale, and others to get out to the public, or any other games by creators that aren't equipped for a full cert process. Hell even getting access to a devkit, or perhaps even approval to develop on the platform can be a bit of a hassle and to some extent the amount of paperwork involved can discourage people from the entire process. What valve hasn't, or at least hasn't been willing to do in my view is take these so called fake games off their marketplace once they're discovered, or put any kind of restrictions on pricing for games that don't meet some kind of standard.

It's not you, destiny has changed a lot and not necessarily in ways you'd expect. They throw a lot of stuff at you pretty early, and most of that won't be necessary until way into the late game. For the most part you only need to follow the exclamation points for story and playlist stuff, best place to look at at the bottom left of the screen when you bring up the director. Most of the changes are to perks on exotic weapons and the economy, neither of which really matter until you've done just about everything else. I'd say just pick playlist you like and go for it--the rest will fall into place soon enough

She does make some assumptions regarding Bioware's motives that she elucidates on somewhat in the video, and they are somewhat sketchy, it's more the last couple of sentences I find interesting. This particular criticism of MEA is one I've seen get a lot of attention, and I think that passage effectively describes why this has become a sticking point of a lot of the game's criticism when other more glaring issues exist. There is a sense I've noticed around Bioware games in recent years that there is some malice assumed in the development proceedings, and while this is true of almost any fan base, Bioware seems to be a unique version of it. Ultimately her argument boils down to Bioware's attempts at inclusion are poorly handled and that is creating a distrust in fans that is causing otherwise open minded people to reject any inclusive sentiment in all it's forms.

This might not be the exact right thread for this, since it touches on social issues around gaming recently more so than MEA, but it's something I've been seeing more and more of, particularly in relation to this game. I came across this essay in response to MEA's visual issues (particularly Sara Ryder) that I think goes a long way in describing the extreme reaction people have been having to the game itself. The whole thing is pretty long, but really worth listening to, and I think she hits on something here I've been noticing in the response to MEA but also games generally. If you don't feel like watching the whole thing her position is summed up pretty well by the last few sentences: I'm not sure if there is anything in particular that can or should be done with regards to any of these topics--I certainly wouldn't have the answers if they do exist--but I've found this to be a particularly profound insight into modern social trends in video games.

For those that haven't been keeping up wit Hearthstone, the new Journey to Un'Goro card set will be coming out soon, and if you play in the meantime you can earn card packs that will unlock once the new series comes out. I'm incredibly excited about this new set, new quest and adapt mechanics are being introduced which I think should help to slow down the meta and make the card pool more dynamic.

To be fair, the original trilogy was made 10, 7 and 5 years ago respectively, and ran on machines that had 1/16th the ram by teams that were at their largest half the size of Andromeda's. Those projects were also far less ambitious, and for their time pretty significant steps forward. If I recall correctly, facial animations and in particular the eye shading was a pretty big deal. Back in the 2000s a lot of techniques were used in game development that are no longer acceptable, or at the very least in a higher def environment show their flaws. One particular example is that if you start your single player campaign before connecting the servers, the game stops trying to connect and you can't do the apex missions. Now you think that if you go up to the terminal and try to do an apex mission in this unconnected state, a connection would be attempted, but instead the game tells you to go back to the main menu and wait for the connection to complete. You can break a feature of the game by going through a menu too fast, there's just no excuse for that. After having spent around 15 hours with the game, my biggest problem with it I think is that the team seemingly failed to consider the specifics of the game they were designing. It feels like at a certain point they just started wholesale carting things over from mass effect that didn't really fit anymore given how different of a game this is. For example, the 3 ability structure that has become common in many games (most notably destiny) is built around having specific pairs of abilities, and most importantly a superpower or defining one. Then the favorites system seems to indicate that the game wants you to swap abilities around, but throws in a global cooldown on all the abilities when this happens and ultimately discourages this kind of gameplay. This favorites system also doesn't have guns as a part of it, so it's not really possible to create the wildly varying play styles that existed in ME3. The combat system seems to value momentum, encouraging you to dodge around the battlefield to avoid damage, but then all the AI opponents use hitscan weapons and are able to change their aiming direction just as fast as you can move. I even had a moment when I last played where I was up on a cliff, jumped off and hit my jump pack right before landing, only to have the game warp me back to the position I jumped from. I have still managed to have a fair bit of fun with the game so far, but the game is far too at odds with itself for me to really become immersed in it, and I think this is the source of a lot of the hyperbolic takedowns that have been coming out of late.

In the first mission one of your buddies says "He Looks angry, maybe it's because I shot him in the face!" There are some primo lines line that, but they seem to be getting less frequent as the campaign goes on. The biggest thing with the dialogue and story I'm finding is that the game can't seem to settle on a tone. There even appear to be some interactions that I think were supposed to have some kind of reaction shot, but they didn't have time to polish things up. Instead it kind of delays the transition to the next shot which I think is supposed to be suspenseful, but just comes off awkward. Also, this whole save the universe story they seem to be building can fuck right off, I'm at the point where it's actively getting in the way of other story threads I want to see play out. At times it feels like I'm watching a TV show where they've introduced the end of season arc too early or have been too explicit with their foreshadowing and it comes off ham-handed. For anyone that has played further in the campaign, does the pacing ever improve? I'm at a point now where I have so many games to play I might want to put this one on hold until some patches and DLC come through.

After playing through the first couple of main story missions, I'm having the same reservations about the game as I had before, but I'm also quite enjoying being in the world again. I'm not as intrigued by Andromeda as I was by other ME games, but all in all the good parts outweigh the bad for me. Also, I'm not sure if they tutorialize this, but the favorites menu is accessed from the profiles screen. I didn't realize that until about 10 hours into the game, and actually having figured out how to change profiles makes the combat situations a lot more enjoyable. I'm also quite enjoying how the consumables are integrated into the overall systems. For example, if you have the energy drain ability and use a shield capacitor, the ability itself does more damage as a result of your shields being temporarily boosted. The equipment stuff can sometimes feel overwhelming, but if you take the time to really get into it there is a lot of depth there, particularly once you figure out how to develop guns that can prime ability combos.

This is something I've noticed as well. In particular, the first 20 minutes or so of the game wavers between a feeling of going off to explore the unknown to almost sitcom type dialogue. Obviously this is a pretty common problem in narrative heavy games, but given this series' pedigree the issues are all that more noticeable. In particular (SP spoiler):

From a design perspective, I suppose this argument might work but from a technical perspective this would just mean that an explicit cover system should never have been implemented. The creation of an explicit cover system has to be put in to solve a problem, otherwise it simply isn't worth the cost. On the design front, I don't think it solves the problem of giving the player a means to avoid damage as well as just allowing the player to change their stance would. Also on the button point, you still have to do the same thing in order to dash away from an engagement, and there's no reason it couldn't have been one of the stick buttons if that were a significant concern or just made an alternate function of the dodge button (tap to crouch, hold to dodge). On the technical side things get much more hairy, particularly because now the host in a multiplayer game has to do a ton of work in evaluating the environment around a player and the math generally gets a lot more complicated. The whole thing just feels undercooked, which after having played a bit more today seems to be a complaint I'm having with the game generally.

I've put about 5 hours into the trial, both MP and SP and while there is a lot to like here, the technical issues have been present throughout. I've only managed to complete 3 MP games so far (having crashed out of all the others), and have even crashed out of SP a few times. I don't think this is too big a knock against the game though, I imagine there will be an early patch that will address most of these issues on the first day if not shortly thereafter, but in the meantime if you plan on picking this up on PC I'd at least give the trial a run if you can to see how it performs. A far as the game itself goes, I can only describe it as uneven. It seems like at some point in development ME:A was a very different game, but then just got hammered into the shape of a standard RPG and the tonal inconsistency shows, particularly in the early hours of the single player campaign. A great deal has been made about the facial animations thus far, but what has frustrated me is the generally poor craftsmanship I've been seeing throughout. I don't know that most of these things will matter to someone who doesn't work in game dev, but for my circle of friends it's been a source of frustration. Rather than go into too much detail, here are the major sticking points for me - the cover system is generally frustrating, particularly when moving a tad too far in one direction or turning to face a flanking enemy, which in some cases causes your character to exit said cover. It's neat when it works, but it more than often gets in the way. I can't imagine a verison of this cover system that wouldn't be better suited by just having a crouch button and context sensitive aiming animations. - You can see a lot of the DNA of Dragon Age: Inquisition here, even down to some of the sound effects. I count this as a good thing, but if you didn't like that game there is probably a fair bit about ME:A you won't like as well - Weapon reloads are interrupted by god damn everything, including getting into cover it appears, unless this was just a follow on from the network issues I was seeing. - All the weapons so far feel incredibly unique, which is quite a feat given how many there are. I don't know that the gunplay is as good as something like destiny, but the mechanics of the weapons dovetail quite nicely with the powers and movement systems. - The UI doesn't communicate effectively-- it's either too much information, not enough, or redundant. For example the ability icons appear as light blue buttons with a light blue highlight to show their cooldown on the bottom right of your screen, but this information is shown more clearly in the curved bars appearing around your aiming reticule. - There is so much to do in this game. I've made it to the stopping point in the trial where the SP campaign ends, and I'm still discovering new systems, menus, etc, most of which is unexplained. If this kind of thing bugs you it might be frustrating, but I've quite enjoyed how much this lends to the game's sense of scale. - The momentum of the jump and dash feel a bit clumsy, it's not as clear or predictable as something like destiny and the camera doesn't do a great job of framing the action when the jump pack is engaged. - The melee is a big step back from ME3. it doesn't go in your facing direction necessarily, and similar to the jump the camera doesn't make any attempt to frame the action when it's being used - The physics system is a mixed bag. The biotic nonsense from ME1 is back, where you can just send characters flying up into space, but interactions on things like the biotic charge, jump and dash seem to be more prescriptive. In other words, don't expect much in the way of emergent interaction on the physics, I don't think there is any kind of a unified system in place.

I'm only 10 or so hours into Horizon, so I haven't seen all the various societies but just about everything so far is pretty horrifying. The Native american thing seems to be getting a lot of play for the medium article, but the structure and practices of these societies is pretty universally bad. Let's just take Nora for example-- this is a society where only women who have children can rise to leadership positions, women who are responsible for multiple generations are held in higher esteem and actually outrank childless women, and these same individuals can seemingly make anyone an outcast for just about any perceived slight. That's not to mention the fascistic treatment of the members of the society all the way down to who they are allowed to speak to, and the legally required shunning of people who have angered the society's power brokers. I get that people tend to like this society because it is lead by women, but just about every aspect of it is a controlling, abusive relationship writ large. On the gameplay front, the Create Job feature might be the best idea I've seen in a game in a while. It really makes the exploration and crafting way more enjoyable when I don't have to keep popping open an inventory to see what other animal parts I need to make something.

I get the sense that the more open ended design of the abilities system is a response to the criticism of ME 2 and 3 that people were taking certain companions into the field with them purely because they needed access to one ability or another. That's a nice change on a narrative level but I'm wary of the obvious drawbacks of a system like this, as well as the generally unfocused nature the combat seems to have from the few gameplay videos we've seen. Mass effect has always felt like a series that was defined as much by what it left out as what it put in, so I hope this new direction isn't as unfocused as it initially appears to be. I know they haven't gone over the narrative all that much, but I'm really hoping there is an element of the game focused on factional politics on the ark, the establishment of settlements, or being the first people to touch down on a surface. So far from everything we've seen, each of these things seems to have already happened before the player gets there-- Colonies are established, rebellions have already happened, and so on. I really was hoping andromeda would make exploration a part of mass effect again, but this structure seems more like an excuse for combat scenarios to me more than anything else.

For those that haven't been following, the DNC just selected their new char, Tom Perez here are a couple of articles regarding the selection process that go into a bit more detail/opinion https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-dnc-race-turned-into-a-group-therapy-session/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/why-are-no-women-running-for-dnc-chair/511061/ https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense Then there's this chestnut https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/02/25/dnc-votes-against-ban-on-registered-corporate-lobbyists-n2290623 With the republican party being in control of most state legislatures, governor ships, and holding a majority in all 3 federal branches it's more important than ever that a strong opposition party (or parties) are present, things like this indicate to me that the democratic party is simply unable to fill that role.

I've actually been spending more time reading right wing news/opinion and so forth recently, and to be honest the unity the right appears to have is a sham. The only real unifying force is a vague sense of anger at political and media institutions that I don't think will be able to survive through any significant downturn in the country should one occur. The cracks are already beginning to show, and how the administration plays fast and loose with the truth is already starting to come back to bite them. There also seem to be growing liberal movements against trump (and more broadly the republican party) in areas that have been traditionally been republican, the only question is whether or not those movements and people will be as enthusiastic in local, state, and congressional elections. The far more concerning aspects of Trump's administration for me are appointments like Betsy Devos and Steve Mnuchin who will affect policies that will go largely unnoticed and not have their impact felt for many years to come. As bat shit as Trump's first month has been, I fear that his antics will ultimately blind people to the more mundane and far reaching harm done by such appointments.

Man the western talk brought me back to my childhood, I can't remember how many I've seen at family gatherings or with my father. If you're looking for weird westerns, I highly recommend My name is nobody.It often manages to go from weird or flippant to sincere within the same scene, and feels like one of those movies that could only exist as a western. I'm honestly quite surprised we don't see more western games, particularly based on how influenced they are by Japanese films which seem to have influenced a whole host of game genres. I wonder if the cowboy fantasy just doesn't have as much traction outside the US, or perhaps it's just been replaced with a more modern and militaristic one.

I just started this as well; I've only just arrived at addermire station so I might just be adjusting to the mechanics still, but I'm having a lot of trouble getting into this game. I quite enjoyed dishonored 1, but I feel like this game sacrificed a lot of readability for it's world design, which necessitates things like the always on screen UI indicators. So far none of the areas feel very memorable, and the encounters feel like they have too many enemies or participants in them such that they tend to result in complete chaos if the initial stealth is failed. Is this just indicative of the early part of the game? What I most enjoyed about Dishonored 1 was the tension it was able to create when stealthing around, this just feels too all or nothing at the moment-- I never have that sense of barely escaping without being seen or outwitting a guard as they're about to find me. Also, this is bit of a nit pick but I find the the lean mechanic infuriating. The extra visibility is nice, but it feels like this lean should also allow me to adjust the aiming center of my abilities, which doesn't appear to be the case.

That was a very interesting article, thanks for posting it. I don't blame tweets necessarily, just that the emphasis on things like tweets created the environment where a candidate like trump was possible. As an example, fake news has gotten a lot of attention in this past election, but gallop research indicates that what mostly affected people's opinions on the candidates were what mainstream media outlets covered most (detailed in video below) which tended to be focused on social media posts from one person or another. I've seen a lot of discussion regarding old vs new media in this election, and while they are different perhaps in their delivery their mechanisms and structure are nearly identical. Both of these styles of newsmedia end, or even begin their programs by soliciting the opinions of their viewers, in some cases making those solicitations prior to having done any reporting on the topic--effectively valuing uninformed opinion over their own reporting. A service like twitter is a place where anyone can become a celebrity, if even for a short amount of time, for virtually any reason. While there is virtue in this to some degree I find the extreme focus on it, to the detriment of nearly all other endeavors to be a profound and largely overlook phenomenon. Like the Vox video states, places like the national enquirer have been around for decades at this point, they haven't been taken seriously. On the other hand their new media counterparts, which are similar in content have come to be seen as authentic. While this certainly isn't a scientific assessment, to me the emphasis of modern day yellow journalism betrays a distinct and recent trend in media, the origination of which must have come from somewhere.

I think this is going to be a major theme of the next 4 years, where even if Trump does something that is an obvious conflict of interest or violates some law I don't think the political will is there to do anything about it. Almost all of the anti trump senators have already fallen in line and generally put their personal fortunes and careers above the good of the country. On the social front there are quite a few protests going against him, both in the US and internationally, I'm just not convinced of their effectiveness. If the campaign showed us anything it's that there aren't enough pussy hats on the planet to affect Trump's opinion on anything--if you really want to affect his opinion the protest must take a form that affects him personally, or more pointedly his personal vanity and worth. I've also heard from a few sources, but certainly not definitively, that the majority of these protests happened in places where Clinton enjoyed broad support, so I'm not yet convinced that these will amount to anything in the future. It doesn't matter how many more latinos get registered to vote in California, they won't have any effect on the electoral college in 2020, and perhaps since Trump generally sucks all the oxygen out of the room people seemed to have missed the fact that in this election republicans won a majority in all branches of federal government, almost 2/3rds of state governorships and legislatures, and will likely have control of the gerrymandering process after the next census. On the whole though, I'm not as pessimistic about his administration, at least on the federal level. There is certainly the will to oppose his specific policies on the federal level, like with what just happened with the deportation order, and if he turns out to be serious about infrastructure projects he'll likely do some good during his administration provided congress even puts those bills up for a vote. What scares me the most about the next election, including all the local, state and senatorial elections coming up in the next 4 years is that the democratic party doesn't appear to be interested in or even capable of being a strong opposition party given the electoral realities in the country today. The upcoming leadership of the DNC seems even more intent on creating enemies where they don't need to exist, and generally playing into the narrative that Trump's campaign peddled throughout the election-- a narrative that will likely become more stark as the Trump administration soldiers on. Also a side note, this last week I went back and did some research into federal elections since 2008, and I've come to the conclusion that Trump's election can be most easily blamed on the media's obsession with ratings finally catching up with them. People tend to forget that Trump ran for the republican nomination both in 2008 and 2012, and was laughed off the stage both times. If you look at the things he was suggesting back then, they weren't all that different than what he did in 2016--something changed in his ability to garner attention in that time. In my estimation places like the Huffington post and CNN should be credited for Trump's success more so than fox or breitbart because in that period of time it was largely the liberal publications that conditioned the public to see a tweet as not only a new story, but a top of the banner/front page news story. in order to live in a world where a tweet from Trump is an important news story, we must first live in a world where a tweet is an important news story, and I don't think Trump's rise to popularity would have been likely or even possible without that. I'm not putting the blame on their shoulders entirely, but they certainly hold a significant amount of responsibility for creating the environment where someone like Trump is possible. TL:DR; Trump's a nut, might do some good, but at least I have whiskey. Also call your congress person.

I feel like the bit with Diego shooting the defector is getting a lot more credit than it deserves. The man is an assassin (or we know at least a spy at that point in the movie) within an armed resistance, it's not like the rebels are some kind of nonviolent opposition up to that point. The rebels clearly have support from a broad range of groups, and it doesn't seem like they are hurting for manpower or equipment, so I don't get it wouldn't then be taken as a given that they have spies and assassins. If the creators wanted to make the point that the rebellion has been encouraging people to give in to their barbarism they had many opportunities to drive that point home but never really did. To some extent I think this is my own pet peeve, but it's just that this kind of inconsistency really prevents me from enjoying the film. Even thinking back on it, and hearing other people's reactions, I still don't really have a sense of what this movie was trying to be. The characters didn't feel like they were driven by any kind of consistent motivation, they just did whatever the action needed them to do at the time. It all just felt very paint by numbers.