97 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yeah, despite the numerous colonies and human distribution throughout the galaxy, less than 2% of humans live off Earth.

[crimzontearz]

I had some 20 playthroughs on ME1 and about the same on ME2, James....I'd be totally ok with losing Earth as long as the human race does not go extinct in the process.

even then I still wonder is really 99% of humans are on Earth

[crimzontearz]

linky Phoenix?

and how much is 2%? how much is the total population?

still, it also depends on your definition of "lost"

[jamesp81]

crimzontearz wrote...

I had some 20 playthroughs on ME1 and about the same on ME2, James....I'd be totally ok with losing Earth as long as the human race does not go extinct in the process.

even then I still wonder is really 99% of humans are on Earth

The math says they are.

Losing Earth means one of two realistic outcomes.

1) Conquest by the Batarians and enslavement
2) Extinction at the hands of the same

These are the only two ways that story ends.  Lose Earth = Lose the Game.  As I said, I didn't spend dozens of hours playing ME1 and ME2 to lose.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 mai 2011 - 01:55 .

[jamesp81]

crimzontearz wrote...

linky Phoenix?

and how much is 2%? how much is the total population?

still, it also depends on your definition of "lost"

We're not going to do your research for you, especially not when this topic has been discussed at length.  The only people who think Earth doesn't represent 98% or more of humanity are those unfamiliar with the lore and those who think the Codex is wrong.

Go here: http://masseffect.wi...ass_Effect_Wiki

Look up Bekenstein, Terra Nova, and Eden Prime.  Take particular note that these worlds are humanity's oldest colonies.  Then take note of the populations.  Earth itself has a population of 11.4 billion.

This is not something that's really in doubt here.  The writing is CLEARLY on the wall, that almost all of the human race continues to reside on Earth.  Give it another three or four centuries and that might not be true anymore, but right now, it is.

Modifié par jamesp81, 09 mai 2011 - 01:59 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

What James said. Everything is on the Wiki (which in turn is taken from the in-game Codex). Do the math and you will see.

[crimzontearz]

no need to, I simply missed your previous post since it was at the bottom of the previous page but I believe you.

Now with that in mind, it all hinges on Bioware's definition of "lost". Secondly, it would not be the first time Bioware handwaves part of the codex for the sake of what they want to do. We will just have to wait and see

Modifié par crimzontearz, 09 mai 2011 - 02:01 .

[Rawke]

jamesp81 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

I had some 20 playthroughs on ME1 and about the same on ME2, James....I'd be totally ok with losing Earth as long as the human race does not go extinct in the process.

even then I still wonder is really 99% of humans are on Earth

The math says they are.

Losing Earth means one of two realistic outcomes.

1) Conquest by the Batarians and enslavement
2) Extinction at the hands of the same

These are the only two ways that story ends.  Lose Earth = Lose the Game.  As I said, I didn't spend dozens of hours playing ME1 and ME2 to lose.

This. If Earth is lost, humanity's ****ed. Big time. I doubt even the combined off-world population could sustain more than a few generations until it gradually dies out. Depends on social and economic factors. Even if humanity survives, it won't play any role on the galactic stage for several hundred, if not thousand years.

Then again, if Earth is lost, so is the galaxy.

[jamesp81]

crimzontearz wrote...

no need to, I simply missed your previous post since it was at the bottom of the previous page but I believe you.

Now with that in mind, it all hinges on Bioware's definition of "lost". Secondly, it would not be the first time Bioware handwaves part of the codex for the sake of what they want to do. We will just have to wait and see

And it also wouldn't be the first time I said "I'm not interested in this story" and not spent any money it.  I did not play ME1 and ME2 only to lose in ME3.

[alperez]

Seriously does anyone actually believe they would go with a earth falls completely scenario that cannot be prevented, really?

Earth falls under attack, Shep leaves to rally support, large scale battle, reapers defeated, Earth saved, Humanity proven to be a force for good, the end.

Thats much more likely a scenario that will be how the series plays out, they are not going to do an earth destroyed scenario that cannot be prevented, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What they mean by earth being lost is that at the beginning earth is lost, there is nothing Shepard can do to stop what is happening from where Shepard is. So we make a tactical retreat, regroup and onward to the final battle thats it in a nutshell.

Earth is Lost is a byline in the same way as They Don't expect you to Survive was in me2, the question that we should be asking is what will it cost to save earth. Thats the real problem we face, what are you willing to give up to save earth.

We may have to be willing to sacrifice other civilisations, other species homeworlds, squadmates and friends, shepard and even our own humanity to get it done. Some people may be willing to give up everything in order to ensure earth survives, others may not, but in the end no matter how you play it Earth will survive, otherwise we'll be getting a game over screen.

[Krimson_Wolf]

I don't think I've heard it, or is it in the ME3 trailer? If so it is off to a great start. If it's not someone please post a link I would very much like to hear it.

[crimzontearz]

it's in the GI article

[jamesp81]

alperez wrote...

Seriously does anyone actually believe they would go with a earth falls completely scenario that cannot be prevented, really?

It's not impossible.

I have too many bad memories of Blizzard games to completely discount the possiblity.

[DarthCaine]

Mass Effect 3: Cthulhu from Outer Space

[alperez]

jamesp81 wrote...



It's not impossible.

I have too many bad memories of Blizzard games to completely discount the possiblity.

Grrrrr blizzard, but on the plus side this isn't a blizzard game so thats one thing we don't have to worry about.

I just can't for the life of me see them doing an earth falls and you can't stop it scenario, to me it just doesn't make sense for many reasons. For example a pro human cerberus loving renegede would be immediately screwed before the game began and since they're screwing with them as it is i can't see them going the full hog.

For 2 games a lot of people have wanted earth brought into the story and for bioware to bring it in and destroy it without allowing you to save it makes no real sense, its too cynical a move in these cynical times. Not to mention i would love to see them explaining that one to the marketing department at Ea, oh btw we destroy the earth so don't expect a bonus when the quarterly fiscals are released.

Plus there's the whole Quarian thing, we already have a nomadic species with no home planet, why do 2? I mean seriously was the point of 3 mass effect games just to steal Tali's thunder.

[Leonia]

jamesp81 wrote...

It had one of the ****tiest, unfulfilling series endings I can think of.

The ending to BSG isn't what was important.. the journey to get there was.

Also, BSG (the re-imagined series, that is) was more or less an allegory on real-life events that were affecting the US around the time and that's why it turned out to be as dark as it was. Not that dark and sci-fi is a bad thing but not everyone appreciated the political undertones.

I for one, quite enjoyed BSG and that level of darkness would be ok in ME as long as there are some moments of brevity and lightheartedness thrown in as well. It can't all be doom and gloom.

Modifié par leonia42, 09 mai 2011 - 02:52 .

[crimzontearz]

Forever Knight had one of the very worst endings EVER

Followed by the ending of Angel (without the comicbook serie of course)

[KironDrayga]

I imagine towards the end of ME3 you'll have the option when "retaking" Earth you'll effectively choose as Shepard between "paragon" options in which alien casualties are minimized (but more humans die) and "renegade" options in which you may actually send alien factions (or even squadmates) to their deaths in order to save human populations. "Tali, go with the Quarian team to defend New Singapore," versus "New Singapore isn't worth saving, Tali, stick with me."

Furthermore, the Reapers desire to subjugate humanity into next-generation "Collectors" akin to the Protheans. In that context, it's more likely that there would still be a substantial population of human civilians alive when Shepard and the other races returned to Earth to "rescue" them.

I think the most realistic "human-centric" option would involve saving humanity, albeit not "Earth". Enough of Earth's population would survive to continue the human race and theoretically attain prosperity again, but like the Quarians, they'd have to move to a new homeworld like Eden Prime or something. If that's the eventual outcome, I'd be okay with that. There's a difference between "saving millions if not billions of humans" and actually "saving Earth," and while I understand why some people would boycott ME3 if the former was not an option, no one should boycott ME3 if Earth is lost regardless. It's the continued prosperity of the human species we care about, not whether we're still hangin' out in New York City or London.

Of course that's all just speculation, but still.

[jamesp81]

KironDrayga wrote...

no one should boycott ME3 if Earth is lost regardless. It's the continued prosperity of the human species we care about, not whether we're still hangin' out in New York City or London. 

Well, I'm glad I've got someone here to tell me how I 'should' spend my money

Earth is lost = my money is lost to Bioware.  And that's the way it 'should' be.

[KironDrayga]

jamesp81 wrote...
Well, I'm glad I've got someone here to tell me how I 'should' spend my money

Earth is lost = my money is lost to Bioware.  And that's the way it 'should' be.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this reasoning.
First, the "Earth" in the Mass Effect series is a fictionalized Earth. Yes, it sucks that it's lost, but it's not literally suggesting that our actual descendants are going to die gruesome deaths. It's intended to raise the stakes in a fictional narrative and force you as a gamer to confront themes of loss and sacrifice. If you seriously can't disassociate "fantasy" from "reality" in the context of a videogame, I'd be worried for you. 

Second, by this logic you'd have to boycott playing a game in the Fallout series because it suggests the Earth was nuked into oblivion, and you'd boycott Left 4 Dead because it suggests America's going to be zombiefied. If you don't boycott those games, I don't see the intellectual consistency in boycotting Mass Effect 3 unless you seriously value the planet Earth more than you actually value the human beings who live in it. Again, losing the physical location of Earth is not equivocal to losing humanity as a species. Worst case scenario, you can probably still save the Earth in a "Fallout 3" style condition, and you save plenty of people, in which case I suppose you could theoretically restore the planet over the course of many generations. Although I think most of Earth's population in that circumstance would prefer relocation to a habitable colony.

[jamesp81]

KironDrayga wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...
Well, I'm glad I've got someone here to tell me how I 'should' spend my money

Earth is lost = my money is lost to Bioware.  And that's the way it 'should' be.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this reasoning.
First, the "Earth" in the Mass Effect series is a fictionalized Earth. Yes, it sucks that it's lost, but it's not literally suggesting that our actual descendants are going to die gruesome deaths. It's intended to raise the stakes in a fictional narrative and force you as a gamer to confront themes of loss and sacrifice. If you seriously can't disassociate "fantasy" from "reality" in the context of a videogame, I'd be worried for you. 

Second, by this logic you'd have to boycott playing a game in the Fallout series because it suggests the Earth was nuked into oblivion, and you'd boycott Left 4 Dead because it suggests America's going to be zombiefied. If you don't boycott those games, I don't see the intellectual consistency in boycotting Mass Effect 3 unless you seriously value the planet Earth more than you actually value the human beings who live in it. Again, losing the physical location of Earth is not equivocal to losing humanity as a species. Worst case scenario, you can probably still save the Earth in a "Fallout 3" style condition, and you save plenty of people, in which case I suppose you could theoretically restore the planet over the course of many generations. Although I think most of Earth's population in that circumstance would prefer relocation to a habitable colony.

You're overthinking this.

Earth destroyed in ME3 = story I'm not interested in.  It's truly as simple as that.

Edit:

And ffs, leave the pscyhoanalytical stuff somewhere else.  Really?  Seriously?  You're making judgments about my character based on whether or not I purchase a damned video game?

Modifié par jamesp81, 12 mai 2011 - 07:36 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

JanisaryJames wrote...

Its a strange world we live in where despair/hopelessness = awesome...

The "awesome" part is more about being the guy who overcomes it. And I agree. An onslaught of the scale this Reaper invasion represents is something pretty intimidating, both in terms of scope within the world and scope of ambition on the part of the designers. It could be really, really awesome.

[Nathan Redgrave]

jamesp81 wrote...

Earth destroyed in ME3 = story I'm not interested in.  It's truly as simple as that.

However, the existence of a scenario in which the Earth can be destroyed is... an interesting idea. Giving the player the choice between the Earth and the larger galaxy would be awesome.