64 réponses à ce sujet

[4li3n]

TelexFerra wrote...

Inertia

 That's
precisely why he needed to shut down the torches. Because the asteroid's
normal course was being altered by them to go towards Terra Nova... and
at the end there's dialogue how in about another hour it would have
been to late to do anything by stopping the torches.
 
 If the
asteroid was already on a colission course then keeping the torches on
would have been pointless, or even damaging to the terrorists plot
because it might take the asteroid off the colission course.

 
 TLDR: The asteroid wasn't on a colission course, the torches where taking it into one...


 

[Labrev]

I just can't get past the fact that when Balak takes out his omni-tool to set off the bomb, Shepard just stands and watches. I mean, couldn't he have at least tried to whip out his pistol and shoot?

[AquamanOS]

Could have, being the key word. Shepard didn't know that or plan in advance for that.

You could have saved Kaiden and Ashley both if you were able to reinforce the bomb site with guards while Shepard retrieved the ground team with the Normandy then came back to the bomb site to pick up the rest, then activated the bomb and left. But you can't because the bomb is armed while Shepard is halfway there and Shepard only has enough time to go to one area.

[Inutaisho7996]

windsock wrote...

Physics is awesome.

Which is sometimes why I facepalm at the Normandy pulling off atmospheric moves in a vacuum but that's another topic

[4li3n]

AquamanOS wrote...
You could have saved Kaiden and Ashley both if you were able to reinforce the bomb site with guards while Shepard retrieved the ground team with the Normandy then came back to the bomb site to pick up the rest, then activated the bomb and left. But you can't because the bomb is armed while Shepard is halfway there and Shepard only has enough time to go to one area.

  My impression was that Shepard was going to come back to the bomb site once he got the tower guys... which made me facepalm that he didn't just leave the Normandy at the bomb site, or at least order it to go help/reinforce the person he left at the bomb site while he took care of the AA tower...

 They really could have improved that part IMO.

[chester013]

A lot of discussion about the story and physics etc that are interesting but not the reason. You were to be presented with a difficult moral choice at the end of the mission, whether you could have saved the hostages and killed the terrorists is a moot point the point is you have to make a judgement call.

Interesting choices though, usually with these options I have an easy time picking but this one I always found difficult. On the one hand you have the hostages, saving them should (in my book) be top priority but then by letting the terrorist go how many other lives are you risking? I'm not sure there's a right answer but the renegade option seemed to be the it for me, a goody two-shoes paragon. It's off topic I know but I ramble.

[DRSH]

Somewhat Off topic: As I heard it, the new Arrival DLC will be with batarians. Wouldn't it be fukin awesome if for paragon Shepard, Balak survived the X57 DLC and appears in the new arrival DLC as a possible villain. for the people who killed Balak in ME1 they'd just have an alternate villain say Balak's brother wanting revenge for killing Balak (similar to the Wrex & Wreav substitute)... i mean the possibilites would be fuken COOL and us paragons would get even with Balak and find out more about the reapers at the same time (renegades would have the opportunity of killing another bad batarian aka Balak's bro). Hell maybe Balak (or brother) knows something about the Reapers too and might be trying to get in touch with them to help the batarians with their problems with humanity. As I said... a lot of great possibilites could be explored... maybe even better than the one I stated.

[Null_]

the problem is allot of decisions from ME1 MAIN GAME only had email consequences in ME2, why do you think they will have more dialogue for a DLC to ME1 which wasnt played by that many people.

[Null_]

the problem is allot of decisions from ME1 MAIN GAME only had email consequences in ME2, why do you think they will have more dialogue for a DLC to ME1 which wasnt played by that many people.

[DRSH]

Null_ wrote...

the problem is allot of decisions from ME1 MAIN GAME only had email consequences in ME2, why do you think they will have more dialogue for a DLC to ME1 which wasnt played by that many people.

You're perfectly right, but who knows... after all they want to sell as many dlcs as they can and balak would constitute a good incentive for buying among the possible arrival of the reapers. I'm pretty sure every ME fan played Bring Down the Sky and Balak wouldn't pe totally out of place in the new dlc... was just statin' the possibilities.. what Bioware does with their product is their own decision... more or less unfortunately i would say .

[Sinapus]

One thought that has occurred to me recently is... why was there a confrontation with Balak at all? When you take the main facility he's not there. Just a bunch of his goons. Why bother confronting the human that just wiped out a huge chunk of your forces when you could easily slip out unnoticed?

(That and the whole "door to the hostages is inactive even if you reach it during the battle" just screams railroad to me. Possibly due to limitations in the game engine, but I dislike being railroaded into that sort of choice quite a bit.)

[TrainWreck44_]

Zaxares wrote...

What I want to know is, while running to disable the bombs and save the hostages, why the heck didn't Shepard just activate his radio and say, "Joker! There's going to be a ship filled with terrorists taking off. BLAST THEM!"<br />
<br />
Shepard saves the hostages, the Normandy destroys the ship with Balak and the terrorists on it, mission accomplished PERFECTLY.

 

I know, all I could think of while saving the hostages was why the hell can I not radio Jokr to blast the hell outta the ship thats leaving the asteroid!!!