1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

At the moment, I hold out a faint hope that the "real" answer is #1, and that the turian Councillor was simply laying it on too thick.  But at this point, it makes them sound less like weaslly polititcans and more like bumbling idiots.  More cariactures of politicians than politicians in truth.

Let's think about this momentarily. Let's consider this not from the perspective of Commander Shepard who has access to the Prothean visions, had direct interaction with Sovereign, and spoken with Saren regarding his actions. Pretend you are the average Citadel citizen who knows nothing about Reapers or Saren or anything. So the attack on the Citadel comes and in the aftermath the Council, in power with your confidence, attempts to convince you that a race of highly advanced super machines, responsible for every technological advancement you've ever had, has systematically wiped out every past civilization bar none. And said machines are currently en route to repeat this genocide and your government is expecting you to support this war against a foe you've never heard of nor seen before.

Now pretend you are those politicians who are expected to sell this story to the people. The Council conceded at the start of ME that Shepard was right about Saren and that the Conduit is dangerous. But at that time, they were already aware of the existence of Sovereign. So what proof ultimately is there here and now of the Reapers? A vision which only Shepard has seen and a conversation only he claims to have had with Sovereign. I don't see how the Council/Udina backpedaling on the Reaper threat is unrealistic. You'd be surprised at how people ultimately cling to tenacity. When forced to consider the alternative option? I confess, I'd want to pretend everything is fine as well.

Shepard's own defense of working alongside Cerberus is...lacking... (for a guy who seems to have the ability to bend people to his will, my Shep sure can't seem to get the right words out when it really counts)

To this, I might point out that convincing mercenaries by profession to help with an assignment (several of whom already had motivations for doing so) would be considered substantially different than convincing the heads of galactic civilization that they need to mobilize their fleets for all out war against an enemy they've never seen before. I don't think Shepard has enough intimidate points for that yet.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Moiaussi]

Jebel Krong wrote...

really? idiots complaining that the combat system is "inferior to ME1" in ME2 is suddenly a valid criticism, when even most detractors don't go near that near universally-praised improvement? what Lumikki was saying is that perhaps discussions should be directed to the things that are actually generally acknowledged as weaknesses in the sequel, and not give undue material/credence to the haters with an agenda....

Quote from Lumikki earlier:

Now you say that "I liked ME1 story, I don't like ME2 story, because it doesn't continue ME1 story", because bla, bla and bla". 

Please tell me what that statement of Lum's has to do with the combat system? Of course not all opinions are equally valid, but it is a non-arguement to call them invalid simply because not everyone agrees on them.

If you think someone is a 'hater with an agenda', make a valid case why their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. Give a reason why they are invalid other than 'but I liked it so it is ok,' which seems to be his mantra.

[glacier1701]

I must agree with Moiaussi about the remarks that Lumikki is saying. While we do know the sales figures for ME2 are better than ME1 are they THAT much better because ME2 was a better game OR because enough ME1 fans convinced friends to buy it? Sales figure really do not answer that question and to say that that means a game is good and issues with it should not be talked about is silly at best. Even reviews cannot be taken for granted as even many reviewers do state that they are under intense pressure to be positive about games they review because of advertising by those very companies selling games. Reality is such that it is buyer beware when buying a game and what is generally worse about it is that once opened if a game does not live up to expectations it can almost never be returned for a full refund. What other industry product can be sold like that? It is such a shame that ME2 has the BioWare name on it when it really does not live up to the name that BW has earned for itself in making games. This is not saying that ME2 is bad compared to games from other companies but should they continue on the same kind of path then they become like every other game company and where does that leave us consumers? It would leave us looking at generic games where company names mean nothing and that is NOT a world I want to be living in.

[Il Divo]

glacier1701 wrote...

I must agree with Moiaussi about the remarks that Lumikki is saying. While we do know the sales figures for ME2 are better than ME1 are they THAT much better because ME2 was a better game OR because enough ME1 fans convinced friends to buy it? Sales figure really do not answer that question and to say that that means a game is good and issues with it should not be talked about is silly at best.

You bring up a good point, but it's also important to consider statistics like this:

http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1118657p2.html

Apparently more than half of players have been importing their saves into Mass Effect 2, which is a good thing, but Casey's surprise is also telling. Let's be honest here; how many people here who played ME1 would play ME2 without importing their saves? That to me says, a little less than half of those gamers could potentially be new players. In consideration of this, Mass Effect 2's success might not be as much due to the Mass Effect 1 players as we would believe. Obviously they played a role in shaping its sucess, but they can't be the only factor.

Edit: On another note, what I'm curious to see is a comparison of the sales of ME versus ME2. Think about it. If more than half the players imported their Mass Effect 1 saves and if we knew Mass Effect's total sales, that would tell us to some degree how many players who had previously bought Mass Effect also bought Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Il Divo, 05 novembre 2010 - 11:12 .

[glacier1701]

Il Divo wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

I must agree with Moiaussi about the remarks that Lumikki is saying. While we do know the sales figures for ME2 are better than ME1 are they THAT much better because ME2 was a better game OR because enough ME1 fans convinced friends to buy it? Sales figure really do not answer that question and to say that that means a game is good and issues with it should not be talked about is silly at best.

You bring up a good point, but it's also important to consider statistics like this:

http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1118657p2.html

Apparently more than half of players have been importing their saves into Mass Effect 2, which is a good thing, but Casey's surprise is also telling. Let's be honest here; how many people here who played ME1 would play ME2 without importing their saves? That to me says, a little less than half of those gamers could potentially be new players. In consideration of this, Mass Effect 2's success might not be as much due to the Mass Effect 1 players as we would believe. Obviously they played a role in shaping its sucess, but they can't be the only factor.

Edit: On another note, what I'm curious to see is a comparison of the sales of ME versus ME2. Think about it. If more than half the players imported their Mass Effect 1 saves and if we knew Mass Effect's total sales, that would tell us to some degree how many players who had previously bought Mass Effect also bought Mass Effect 2.

 Yes statistics can be used in many ways. How about the other one in that article that says that roughly only 50% of players who started an ME2 game finished it!!! Now does that mean 50% of players didnt like the game? Or they didnt like the way their character looked? What we can say is that there are a large number of players who didnt like the game enough to finish it and while BioWare has their money there are enough people who did not like it that BW does have to consider what it did not get right and see how to change that for ME3. After all those players will most probably NOT buy ME3 and perhaps persuade friends not too either. But yes we do have to be careful how we interpret things.

 

[Moiaussi]

Il Divo wrote...

You bring up a good point, but it's also important to consider statistics like this:

http://pc.ign.com/ar.../1118657p2.html

Apparently more than half of players have been importing their saves into Mass Effect 2, which is a good thing, but Casey's surprise is also telling. Let's be honest here; how many people here who played ME1 would play ME2 without importing their saves? That to me says, a little less than half of those gamers could potentially be new players. In consideration of this, Mass Effect 2's success might not be as much due to the Mass Effect 1 players as we would believe. Obviously they played a role in shaping its sucess, but they can't be the only factor.

Edit: On another note, what I'm curious to see is a comparison of the sales of ME versus ME2. Think about it. If more than half the players imported their Mass Effect 1 saves and if we knew Mass Effect's total sales, that would tell us to some degree how many players who had previously bought Mass Effect also bought Mass Effect 2.

The number of new players is much more likely to be related to early reviews as well as hype based on how good ME1 was.

Speaking of which, anyone else find it strange they don't have a ME1 and 2 package deal to encourage new players to play both? It is a much better answer to concerns regarding new players feeling out of context...

[sinosleep]

glacier1701 wrote...

 Yes statistics can be used in many ways. How about the other one in that article that says that roughly only 50% of players who started an ME2 game finished it!!! Now does that mean 50% of players didnt like the game? Or they didnt like the way their character looked? What we can say is that there are a large number of players who didnt like the game enough to finish it and while BioWare has their money there are enough people who did not like it that BW does have to consider what it did not get right and see how to change that for ME3. After all those players will most probably NOT buy ME3 and perhaps persuade friends not too either. But yes we do have to be careful how we interpret things.

 

It's impossible to make that assumption without first knowing how many people didn't finish ME 1. You'd be surprised how many people never finish games that clock in at over 10 hours.

Modifié par sinosleep, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Dudeman315]

It's not impossible--it's different data. If 2% didn't finish ME1 that doesn't mean ME1 was better than ME2 or more liked. Just that 2% didn't finish it. The stats are also kinda made up, my friend played ME1 and ME2 and has never had his xbox online or talked to a bioware representative--point being we don't know how they gathered this data so it doesn't prove anything other than 50% of the people that they gathered data on stopped playing.

[Dudeman315]

@Il Divo: Bush got people to buy into WMDs in Iraq to start a war with a country that never attacked the US, but you don't think the council rally people to support a war against an enemy that attacked the citadel?



I kinda surprised at your reasoning that politicians avoid conflict because they don't want to believe it, War on terror after 9/11 attacks wouldn't be much different than war on Reapers after the citadel attack.



Sure they may hide what the Reapers truly are from the people but, usually they don't back down from an enemy.



Or maybe you just don't follow American politics, which would explain your reasoning.

[Moiaussi]

Dudeman315 wrote...

@Il Divo: Bush got people to buy into WMDs in Iraq to start a war with a country that never attacked the US, but you don't think the council rally people to support a war against an enemy that attacked the citadel?

I kinda surprised at your reasoning that politicians avoid conflict because they don't want to believe it, War on terror after 9/11 attacks wouldn't be much different than war on Reapers after the citadel attack.

Sure they may hide what the Reapers truly are from the people but, usually they don't back down from an enemy.

Or maybe you just don't follow American politics, which would explain your reasoning.

The thing is, they don't even need the Reapers as an excuse. They have plenty of reason to want to build the fleets back up. There is every reason to have Shepard investigate 'just in case.' The reality is that he didn't start any wars in ME1.

The Reapers also let them save face regarding Saren. It is easier to sell a rogue agent to the public when there is an evil foreign power to blame the defection on.

[Iakus]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

Let's think about this momentarily. Let's consider this not from the perspective of Commander Shepard who has access to the Prothean visions, had direct interaction with Sovereign, and spoken with Saren regarding his actions. Pretend you are the average Citadel citizen who knows nothing about Reapers or Saren or anything. So the attack on the Citadel comes and in the aftermath the Council, in power with your confidence, attempts to convince you that a race of highly advanced super machines, responsible for every technological advancement you've ever had, has systematically wiped out every past civilization bar none. And said machines are currently en route to repeat this genocide and your government is expecting you to support this war against a foe you've never heard of nor seen before.

Now pretend you are those politicians who are expected to sell this story to the people. The Council conceded at the start of ME that Shepard was right about Saren and that the Conduit is dangerous. But at that time, they were already aware of the existence of Sovereign. So what proof ultimately is there here and now of the Reapers? A vision which only Shepard has seen and a conversation only he claims to have had with Sovereign. I don't see how the Council/Udina backpedaling on the Reaper threat is unrealistic. You'd be surprised at how people ultimately cling to tenacity. When forced to consider the alternative option? I confess, I'd want to pretend everything is fine as well. [/quote]

Or, take option 3:

The geth have crossed the Perseus Veil for the first time in 300 years, led by a ginormous dreadnaught.  They trashed the Citadel fleet, nearly/did kill the Council, and it was only with the aid of the Allance fleet (which also got badly mauled) that they were driven back.  To this day there are still pockets of resistance, and who knows how many more beyond the Veil, perhaps plotting to try another attack.  Time to built up the Fleet, research new weapons, recruit, recruit, recruit! 

And on the side, fund research into archaeological digs, particularly pertaining to Prothean or preProthean technology.  Reach out to other interstellar governments with treaties and alliances.  And oh, yes, find out what size batteries Vigil takes
 
Granted these are likely to be slow to get results, but it would be a start.  As it is, the fleets aren't even back up to pre-Battle of the Citadel strength. 

[quote]
[quote]
Shepard's own defense of working alongside Cerberus is...lacking... (for a guy who seems to have the ability to bend people to his will, my Shep sure can't seem to get the right words out when it really counts)
[/quote]

To this, I might point out that convincing mercenaries by profession to help with an assignment (several of whom already had motivations for doing so) would be considered substantially different than convincing the heads of galactic civilization that they need to mobilize their fleets for all out war against an enemy they've never seen before. I don't think Shepard has enough intimidate points for that yet. [/quote]

"Wanna go on a dangerous mission to an unknown region of space to fight mysterious, highly advanced aliens for the upstart new kids in the galactic community?

"Where do I sign up?"


"The seat of your government got invaded and you nearly died/your predecessors got killed, mainly because they didn't listen to me.  I believe there's a whole fleet of those ships out there wanting to finish the job and kill us all.  I advise rebuilding the fleets and looking to upgrade and expand.. "

"Ah, yes 'Reapers'..."




[/quote]

[Lumikki]

glacier1701 wrote...

I must agree with Moiaussi about the remarks that Lumikki is saying.

Yeah, but that has been the point, you can agree with Moiaussi as much you want. That's not the problem. Problem is that you people don't recognize that there are people who disagree with your opinions in those issues.  So, point is that there is in ME2 issues what most of us can agree, those are the real issues. Issues where player community is split, is based everyones taste of games. Those aren't real issues as categorize bad game. They are issues I want this, not that . Point is, people try to recognize real issues and not think that your personal taste of liking are the real problems, because they are that just for you, not for everyone else. Don't think that your own issues are valid as perspective of game to be bad, because your self has liking issues as you would want something else.

Example I liked Mako and thinked it made ME1 better game. How ever, player community is split in this Mako issue, so my opinion is more taste, as liking , than actually valid issue. Don't think you issue is valid, untill you get good support to it from most of player base, not just players who has same kind of opinions.

Other example ME1 inventory was badly done and most playes here agree with it. It's just question how it should have been fixed where the disagreement happens. So, the ME1 inventory how it was done was real issue. Most of players also agree that ME2 mining planets was badly done, that's real issue.  Most of players agree that ME2 customation was too simplyfied and limited.

Example if I don't like some feature of game, that doesn't make game bad, because liking or disliking is just taste of games. Real bad feature is something what most players think it's bad. Point is, don't think all you issues are real in eyes of other players.  Mostly because those other players can like something what you dislike.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 08:02 .

[Terror_K]

It shouldn't just be down to player taste but what best suits the style of game that's being made here. That style was set by the original Mass Effect and what the developers said Mass Effect was supposed to be. A lot of the issues many of us have isn't whether Mass Effect 2 is a good game or not, but whether Mass Effect 2 is a good sequel or not. And I don't see why more shooter-oriented gamers who only really came into things half-way because of the change of direction Mass Effect took should be dictating what Mass Effect 3 should be. What makes a better game doesn't necessarily make a better sequel and experience for what's trying to be put across here. Less flawed is not always better if it fails to deliver where it matters in the process.

[Lumikki]

In some ways you are right Terror_K. But the problem is how you define what is the orginal style of Mass Effect. Different people value different stuff in games and that also means they view point what is the orginal style can be little bit different between different people. View points are based everyones own taste, because people only seem to see what they want and dismiss what doens't fit in they own perspective. Meaning people see it as how they want it to be, not as what it is.

Example I have problems with DA2, because I do not like the direction where it did go. How ever, it's not me who defines what DA style is, it's Bioware. I can only say that I don't like the direction, but I can't say it's wrong direction, because there is also people who likes where it's going. Problem with all of us is that we allways look situation from our own perspective and think it's the only valid one. That's not true. We may say other opinions are fine, but often our talk seem to say, my opinion is only valid one. Not that we mean to say it, but that is often how it comes out.

Same here with Mass Effects. You may not like what direction it did go, but that is still the Mass Effect style and defined by Bioware. If it would be consider as BAD game as most player, then we could agree it did go wrong direction, but that's not the case. Mass Effect 2 is consider as good game and liked by many. We can not judge game to be bad, because our own liking and taste, it's just bad for us, not as bad in general ways, because there is people who likes the game alot too. Meaning our own opinion is too much based our own taste of games, than reality how it is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 09:28 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Same here with Mass Effects. You may not like what direction it did go, but that is still the Mass Effect style and defined by Bioware. If it would be consider as BAD game as most player, then we could agree it did go wrong direction, but that's not the case. Mass Effect 2 is consider as good game and liked by many. We can not judge game to be bad, because our own liking and taste, it's just bad for us, not as bad in general ways, because there is people who likes the game alot too. Meaning our own opinion is too much based our own taste of games, than reality how it is.

Yeah, but then we get into the trap that gets inevitably sprung by making a game more mainstream: of course more people like it when you make a game that way. If ME3 was a Call of Duty clone you'd find popularity increasing even more amongst the general gaming public of today, but that doesn't mean it's a better Mass Effect game. The majority is not always right, and they're not the market all games should be made for. That just causes a lack of diversity, which we can already see plaguing the industry now.

Also, I have a wide taste in games. I like shooters a lot too, and really enjoy games like Unreal Tournament, Crysis, CoD4 and even Gears of War, but that doesn't mean I want Mass Effect to become more like those, because that's not what I play Mass Effect for or what I feel suits what it was initially setting out to be. Just like I enjoy God of War and Golden Axe, but I don't want Dragon Age 2 to become a hack'n'slash affair.

[Lumikki]

It's not trap, it's your fear what's talking. You are afraid what direction of these game design can go.

What ever type of game some game company makes, it's they decission. There is absolute zero what you can do about it. You can scream about it in every game forum about how they are wrong and it doesn't change anything. I learned that with mmorpgs, where I was part 8-9 years.

You can say for them that you don't like the direction and why, but you can't say it's wrong direction. Because it may be wrong for you, but not for everyone else. I do understand perfectly what you talk, but I have my self learn that lesson allready. Yes, it's sad to see some style of games to allmost die, because majority wants something different. But calling these games bad or going wrong direction, isn't any better. It's just sad.

I agree many things what you say, but not all of them, because my taste and view points is little different too. All my writing is allways colored by own values and view points, like everyones else too. I'm not afraid Mass Effect direction, i'm sure Bioware understand situation well. I'm little sad that also DA serie did start to go same direction than Mass Effect. Because it leave less choises for us who want different kind of games. Even if I liked Mass Effect series more.

My point, screaming every minor issue where you can't get majority back up you opinions is pointless, it only will harm you case. it's better to pick carefully your fights, to those major issues where you get majority to back up your case. Those can still be affected. If people starts to disagree alot, it's lost cause. You and I have been longer enough in this forum to start to see what are the majority issues and what aren't. I don't mean importance for us, but what gets supported by many.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 11:48 .

[Moiaussi]

Lumikki wrote...

My point, screaming every minor issue where you can't get majority back up you opinions is pointless, it only will harm you case. it's better to pick carefully your fights, to those major issues where you get majority to back up your case. Those can still be affected. If people starts to disagree alot, it's lost cause. You and I have been longer enough in this forum to start to see what are the majority issues and what aren't. I don't mean importance for us, but what gets supported by many.

What you are saying, in essence, is that because you like it, you feel that our issues are 'minor' and that we have nothing worth saying regardless of any reasoning we use, and that because you like the changes, you are therefore in the majority.

That is a non-arguement. Of course if Bioware has reason to believe we are in the minority and they really have made the 'better game' you are claiming, then they won't feel the need to change. However unless you can prove that to be the reality, it really is just your preferences against ours. If you want to make a case for why you consider our issues minor other than simply stating they don't bother you, then please do so. Otherwise, your comments are not constructive. They are merely you repeating that you don't care.

If you can't prove your opinion represents the majority, your opinion has no more weight than ours. Simply stating that yours in the majority opinion is not proof.

Modifié par Moiaussi, 06 novembre 2010 - 11:56 .

[Lumikki]

Moiaussi wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

My point, screaming every minor issue where you can't get majority back up you opinions is pointless, it only will harm you case. it's better to pick carefully your fights, to those major issues where you get majority to back up your case. Those can still be affected. If people starts to disagree alot, it's lost cause. You and I have been longer enough in this forum to start to see what are the majority issues and what aren't. I don't mean importance for us, but what gets supported by many.

What you are saying, in essence, is that because you like it, you feel that our issues are 'minor' and that we have nothing worth saying regardless of any reasoning we use, and that because you like the changes, you are therefore in the majority.

That is a non-arguement. Of course if Bioware has reason to believe we are in the minority and they really have made the 'better game' you are claiming, then they won't feel the need to change. However unless you can prove that to be the reality, it really is just your preferences against ours. If you want to make a case for why you consider our issues minor other than simply stating they don't bother you, then please do so. Otherwise, your comments are not constructive. They are merely you repeating that you don't care.

If you can't prove your opinion represents the majority, your opinion has no more weight than ours. Simply stating that yours in the majority opinion is not proof.

I never sayed my opinions to be majority, You make that assumptions by you self. I was talking what ever opinion anyone have, if it doesn't have majority support, it's lost cause. This isn't about me and you, this is about everyone.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:39 .

[Il Divo]

Dudeman315 wrote...

@Il Divo: Bush got people to buy into WMDs in Iraq to start a war with a country that never attacked the US, but you don't think the council rally people to support a war against an enemy that attacked the citadel?

Good for Bush. I'm glad it worked for him. Now explain to me the part where he also had to tell the American People that Iraq was also responsible for manipulating every technological development we've ever had and that they were responsible for committing genocide every 50k years. But hey, I'm sure you believe the average American would buy into that.

I kinda surprised at your reasoning that politicians avoid conflict because they don't want to believe it, War on terror after 9/11 attacks wouldn't be much different than war on Reapers after the citadel attack. 

Reading comprehension for the win. Politicians avoid conflict when it best suits them. Iraq- real threat. I can perceive Iraq and understand that it is a country. If someone points to it and says 'war!', I can nodd my head. Reapers? Never heard of them. Sure, I saw a massive space ship...leading a fleet of Geth. Ergo, it's probably a Geth war ship. For starters, no one could point me to a Reaper and say 'war!' since no one knows where they are beyond dark space. It's the equivalent of declaring a war against unicorns. Good luck selling that. 

Sure they may hide what the Reapers truly are from the people but, usually they don't back down from an enemy.

Great idea. It should work very well, except I'm curious as to how you intend to attack an enemy you can't locate. All your statements lead to the conclusion that we should attack the Geth, not some imaginary enemy galactic civilization has never heard of. If you are positing that the Council should have declared war on the Geth, then I fully agree with you. But that doesn't seem to be your conclusion unfortunately.

Or maybe you just don't follow American politics, which would explain your reasoning.

Logic. Take a course in it. You might learn how to make a proper comparison.

[glacier1701]

Il Divo wrote...

 Snip.....

Great idea. It should work very well, except I'm curious as to how you intend to attack an enemy you can't locate. All your statements lead to the conclusion that we should attack the Geth, not some imaginary enemy galactic civilization has never heard of. If you are positing that the Council should have declared war on the Geth, then I fully agree with you. But that doesn't seem to be your conclusion unfortunately.

snip....

Logic. Take a course in it. You might learn how to make a proper comparison.

 Actually we are able to locate where the Reapers were at the end of ME1. Its rather simple and should we have the balls to try it we can actually go and look at where they were and from there figure out where they are now. Hint: Long distance relays are paired and point at each other. The Citadel is a Mass Relay.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Or, take option 3:

The geth have crossed the Perseus Veil for the first time in 300 years, led by a ginormous dreadnaught.  They trashed the Citadel fleet, nearly/did kill the Council, and it was only with the aid of the Allance fleet (which also got badly mauled) that they were driven back. 

Here's the problem though: you have not made any positive assertion for why anyone, Council or otherwise, should believe in the Reapers. War on the Geth? Possibly. But as per Anderson, the attack on the Citadel hit hard, for the military and the economy. Preparing a fleet large enough to take on however many Geth are located beyond the Veil? I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but Anderson also tells us that it will take at least another five years to finish rebuilding the Citadel. That doesn't say to me that things are going so well as to launch a war into a region of space we have no knowledge of, at least at the current time.   

To this day there are still pockets of resistance, and who knows how many more beyond the Veil, perhaps plotting to try another attack.  Time to built up the Fleet, research new weapons, recruit, recruit, recruit! 

Not entirely true. If you go back and speak to Anderson on the Citadel, the Council did make a war effort to remove all remaining Geth from Citadel space. As of Shepard's return, Anderson claims it's no longer even a war, more like 'clean up' with barely any Geth left. The Council also conceded from the start that Saren was probably using the Reapers to manipulate the Geth into following him. If this is the case, then with Saren dead we can assume the Geth threat to have died with him, minus whatever are still located in Citadel space.

And on the side, 1) fund research into archaeological digs, particularly pertaining to Prothean or preProthean technology.  2) Reach out to other interstellar governments with treaties and alliances.  3) And oh, yes, find out what size batteries Vigil takes

1) This isn't anything new though. The Council, human or otherwise, has always been interested in recovering 'Prothean' technology and do often get their hands on whatever archaeological digs they can find. They've already been funding research, though I would say doing this + building a new fleet + reparations from the attack sounds quite expensive.

2) What interstellar governments? Council/associate-Council races aside, all that's really left are the Quarians and the Krogan. Unless you want to talk about trying diplomatic relations with the Terminus Systems...

3) Admittedly a good idea, presupposing that the Council has enough interest to reactivate Vigil, let alone being possible. But I doubt they would go into this with the idea that Vigil has key information about the Reapers and more in the hope of discovering new Prothean technology.
 

Granted these are likely to be slow to get results, but it would be a start.  As it is, the fleets aren't even back up to pre-Battle of the Citadel strength. 

The reasons for which, to my knowledge, have not been given. If the reason is that they haven't had enough time to recover, how can you expect them to launch a full scale war into the veil?

"Wanna go on a dangerous mission to an unknown region of space to fight mysterious, highly advanced aliens for the upstart new kids in the galactic community?

"Where do I sign up?"

I'd still say convincing Tali (who is close to Shepard) or Samara (who as a Justicar would be inclined by nature to help) is still a more modest appraisal of his abilities than saying Shepard should be able to convince nations to bow down before him.

"The seat of your government got invaded and you nearly died/your predecessors got killed, mainly because they didn't listen to me.  I believe there's a whole fleet of those ships out there wanting to finish the job and kill us all.  I advise rebuilding the fleets and looking to upgrade and expand.. "

Hmm, missing a few details, though still humorous. Shepard would also have to go about telling them that they'd have to somehow send forces into darkspace to fight a race of God machines which no one has ever heard of. Like I said, not enough intimidate points.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:07 .

[Il Divo]

glacier1701 wrote...

 Actually we are able to locate where the Reapers were at the end of ME1. Its rather simple and should we have the balls to try it we can actually go and look at where they were and from there figure out where they are now. Hint: Long distance relays are paired and point at each other. The Citadel is a Mass Relay.

Shepard: Hey guys, you know this entire Prothean space station?

Council: What about it?

Shepard: It's actually a giant mass relay.

Council: Really? Show us.

Shepard: Well, if I just press this button, then it should activate...just give it a couple minutes...

*Citadel Relay activates*
*Reapers pop through*

Council: IT'S A TRAP!

Exaggerations aside, your idea is admittedly brilliant, but there's two issues. The first issue is laid out above, we could easily let the Reapers through the relay. The second issue is, do we even fully know how to activate this kind of relay? Obviously it must be more complicated if no one ever realized the truth, but even with Vigil's codes I'm not certain that he ever showed us how to actually manipulate the relay. That's why Saren had to hand control over to Sovereign, otherwise he could have simply activated the relay himself.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:09 .

[glacier1701]

Il Divo wrote...

glacier1701 wrote...

 Actually we are able to locate where the Reapers were at the end of ME1. Its rather simple and should we have the balls to try it we can actually go and look at where they were and from there figure out where they are now. Hint: Long distance relays are paired and point at each other. The Citadel is a Mass Relay.

Shepard: Hey guys, you know this entire Prothean space station?

Council: What about it?

Shepard: It's actually a giant mass relay.

Council: Really? Show us.

Shepard: Well, if I just press this button, then it should activate...just give it a couple minutes...

*Citadel Relay activates*
*Reapers pop through*

Council: IT'S A TRAP!

Exaggerations aside, your idea is clever, but there's two issues. The first issue is laid out above, we could easily let the Reapers through the relay. The second issue is, do we even fully know how to activate this kind of relay? Obviously it must be more complicated if no one ever realized the truth, but even with Vigil's codes I'm not certain that he ever showed us how to actually manipulate the relay.

First point - yup that was the danger in that the Reapers could come through. However if ANY reasonable amount of time has passed then the Reapers are no longer there. By now its been over 2 years so they would not be at that end point anymore. I am not saying that there is no longer any danger just that it should be miniscule at most IF the Reapers followed any sort of sane logic.

Second point - actually we do have the ability to work the WHOLE Relay network which includes the Citadel. If you recall Saren had got into the system and had turned OFF the Relay Network and had started up the code that would allow access to the Citadel Relay by the time we got to the Council Chamber. We stopped that, turned the relays back on (except for the Citadel) which allowed the 7th Fleet in to destroy Soveriegn. IN other words we had access to the controls for long enough to be able to use them to advantage including using the Citadel. Basically with everything we got from The Collector Base, the derelict Reaper and Vigil it is not beyond belief for Shepard to be able to manipulate the Relay Network in almost any way it was designed for.

[Il Divo]

glacier1701 wrote...

First point - yup that was the danger in that the Reapers could come through. However if ANY reasonable amount of time has passed then the Reapers are no longer there. By now its been over 2 years so they would not be at that end point anymore. I am not saying that there is no longer any danger just that it should be miniscule at most IF the Reapers followed any sort of sane logic.

What's considered a 'reasonable' amount of time though? A few hours? A few days? A few months (keeping in mind that Shepard dies within a month of the battle for the Citadel)? There are an infinite number of variables to take into account that you ultimately cannot account for. You yourself had very little interaction with the Reapers, barring a five minute conversation. We do not know how machines think. That's Vigil's/Sovereign's point; we ultimately cannot understand the Reapers' motives for committing this genocide. So what you are referring to as 'sane logic' is merely organic reasoning. The Reapers have been shown to be patient. Sovereign did not assault the relay directly. Instead, he chose to wait, figure out what was going on, and plan accordingly.

The Geth attack failed. But ultimately, you have barely any knowledge into how a Reaper thinks. They could have waited beyond the relay 100 years devising a new plan. The ending of Mass Effect 2 however seems to indicate that the Reapers have not gone very far from their original position. All this comes down to the point that if you are wrong and choose to activate the Citadel, we're all dead, simple as that.

Second point - actually we do have the ability to work the WHOLE Relay network which includes the Citadel. If you recall Saren had got into the system and had turned OFF the Relay Network and had started up the code that would allow access to the Citadel Relay by the time we got to the Council Chamber. We stopped that, turned the relays back on (except for the Citadel) which allowed the 7th Fleet in to destroy Soveriegn.

Right, but if your point holds true, then there's still a fundamental flaw. Saren had the ability to close the arms of the Citadel, just as Shepard had the ability to open them. If you're saying that Shepard had full control of the Citadel-including the ability to activate the relay-, because of the fact that he can open/close the arms of the Citadel, then it would hold that Saren would also have been able to activate the Citadel relay, in which case he would never have needed to transfer control over to Sovereign/the Keepers to let the Reapers in. Ergo, it's quite possible that Shepard did not have the ability to activate the relay.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 novembre 2010 - 03:06 .