I thought the gender discussion was part of the Halo discussion until things started to get a little nasty.

There is nothing to stop people discussing the book on this thread. I didn't post because I hadn't finished the book. Now that I have finished the book I find that I don't have much to say about it.

I wasn't convinced about why Micky went bad. But I do agree that it is easier to fight to preserve your race against almost certain extinction than it is to kill rebels.

The rebels are usually portrayed as being dicks yet the UNSC is portrayed as being rather imperialist. I'm not sure if I can make the distinction between the Earth government and the UNSC. They seem to be one and the same.

As a player, would I be as keen to kill innies as I was to kill Covies? Even if they were portrayed as moustache twirling nut-jobs?

Plenty of CoD players have no problems killing human foes but I've rarely played a game where I kill lots of humans. I suppose HL2 is the one game where I did that but the Combine forces were pretty faceless.

What would the Chief do?

And what is with having Spartans feel that they are a law unto themselves?

Is it just 343's and SF writers' usual lack of concern for military discipline or are they setting things up for a Chief lead Spartan rebellion against the UNSC?

Getting back to Micky: I would have just quit if I didn't fancy killing humans, if I had that choice.

I know that some players are less invested in the characters that they drive around the game world. They play the role rather than seeing the character as themselves. But I tend to see the characters I drive as being me. So when Micky does something that I wouldn't do, well it grates. "I wouldn't do that!" So that colours how much I can believe that Micky would betray Buck. I mean: I'm Buck. Betray myself?!??? :-)