265 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

And of cause it makes no sense, as you point out they are going to have to deal with the Geth no matter what and even from a tactical point having the DA to help with that makes sense.

No it doesn't, you don't know how dreadnoughts are used in combat. Dreadnoughts are terrible at close quarters combat which is why it got its ass kicked by the geth in the first place and needed saving.

Doesn't matter how dreadnaughts are used in battle, By it's mere presence the DA would soak up enemy fire that would otherwise be aimed at the alliance ships - there is no rationale behind staying back watch the DA get shoot up and wait to engage until the Geth ships can fully concentrate on the alliance ships.

Remember the citadel only opens after the DA's fate has been decided so there is no reason to race to that either.

Except that's not the situation. The Geth are engaged to the Council forces as a whole, not just the DA. They can't concentrate on the Alliance regardless.

This is why the delimma is 'pass by while the Council fleets take the fire' or 'get involved yourself.' The only choice that lets the Geth engage the Alliance in force is the one in which you save the Council... which is the exact opposite of your argument, but is the scenario of the choice.

The alliance fleet jumps in and sees the geth concentrating on the DA, As a admiral he should be able to see what a opportunity this presents.

"Enemy shooting at somebody else?.. hallelujah people you don't get this kind of opportunity often in battle.. FIRE EVERYTHING!"

So... admirals should have no concept of holding fire and priorities of targets?

I'm not sure 'military incompetence' is a basis for justification.

But instead of cause we just have the geth magically disappearing in the "death of the council" scenario because if they actually did show that you would have to deal with the geth anyway the decision to kill the council would look even dumber.

There's nothing magical about it. We see the other Council ships they're still fighting. The Geth are still occupied by the Council forces.

[Medhia Nox]

I think not saving the DA is a poor choice (OPINION) simply because you know that one of Sovereigns' main goals is to destroy galactic government. And - the Council is galactic government.

While altruism and goody goody-ism is fine and good (and worthwhile goals for me to pursue on their own) - I did feel that stopping Sovereign from an objective was worth endangering the Alliance fleet. If sending troops into situations where they might die were always stupid - wars would never happen.

I also believe that the game never presented Sovereign as the all powerful threat he has become on the boards. He is "a" threat to be certain - and a very powerful threat to be sure - but stopping him didn't do anything.

If you let the DA blow up - Sovereign actually achieves one of his goals. ((Of course - nothing happens because of it - just a human Council takes over.))

[Anacronian Stryx]

There's nothing magical about it. We see the other Council ships they're still fighting. The Geth are still occupied by the Council forces.

And where do you see this?

You do not see a single Geth nor council ship by the point the citadel has opened and the alliance have entered the fight with sovereign - none - you do however see geth wreckage around the alliance ships which is kind of odd.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 15 septembre 2011 - 04:07 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
There's nothing magical about it. We see the other Council ships they're still fighting. The Geth are still occupied by the Council forces.

Council forces that could've been used in the fight against Sovereign.

[Saaziel]

I don't really care whether its reasonable or not , i just believe the story would have been better off if it wasn't the case.

If humanity is the focus of the story, then have the story question what is humanity ; As oppose to keep pressing how awesome we are.

Don't want to bore you guys with too many "Ifs" but , if i had a go at the story ; I would have folded the alien races of Mass effect as different breeds , different culture of humans, stemmed from technological advancements & space colonization. Play on the specie being alone in the vastness of space drifting away from it self ; isolated yet divided. Introduce the Reapers as a far more benevolent force, here to rescue us from ourselves.

I think this would have made the choices in Mass effect far more poignant. Not to mention that it would kill a lot of birds (inconsistencies) with the same stone.

Modifié par Saaziel, 15 septembre 2011 - 04:59 .

[Wereparrot]

Given that humanity has a history of aggressive foreign policy, I think the rise to prominence of humanity is both plausible and reasonable. Nations have historically been more prosperous when wielding an aggressive foreign policy. When such a policy is relaxed, any given nation declines in standing. It's only natural that we should employ such a domestically successful policy when we expand into space. Alien species may consider it as unreasonable, but that is their problem; if they trouble to aquaint themselves with human history they will understand humanity better and judge us according to our own standards rather than their own. Humanity deserves it's success; such success has not come without hard work. If other species are resentful, it may be because they find it inconceivable that a species will work as hard as humanity to achieve it's goals, which again shows ignorance of our history.
    

[sponge56]

What is this absurdity that mass effect can't have humans as dominant becasue in reality we are awful.

1) We have absolutely no comparison with any other alien race, we might be more or less advanced than them

2) Its a fictional space opera- the whole genre is about stuff which, shock horror, doesnt exist and is fantastical. People always want mass effect to be incredibly realistic and I always wonder what frikin game theyve been playing. The whole universe is built around colourful bull**** science and machine cthulus from space trying to wipe everything

3) Unless you have serious problems, everyone who bothers to use these forums has played and has enjoyed mass effect. If not, why are you here? What many of you are advocating is not mass effect, it is your own lovely sci fi story. For the love of god these people should become writers, use these good ideas you are having! However they are not mass effect, and the series which we play wouldnt be it by changing every single little thing.

[Saaziel]

sponge56 wrote...

Its a fictional space opera-

Too much is justifiable with this kind of argument. Not that i hate space operas , I'm indifferent regarding them as a genre. Nevertheless you'd still want a certain level of cogency to frame the setting . It help to convey your story when the suspension of disbelief is more manageable.

But i think the question of the Rise of humanity is not a problem of genre , more than it is a problem of whether or not its a necessary part of the story.

sponge56 wrote... Unless you have serious problems, everyone who bothers to use these forums has played and has enjoyed mass effect. If not, why are you here?

Believe or not ; You can still like something and criticize it.

Mind blowing i know , but the extent of ones opinions isn't limited by market exchanges (buying and selling things).

Montezuma IV wrote...

Maybe. But then again, that sounds like a completely different game.

I'd say it would have been more straight forward as opposed to symbolic.

Perhaps i'm trying to hard to read between the lines , but most aliens in Mass effect reflect /emphasize human characteristics (in a Carl Jung archetypical way). Much like Star Trek . I'm saying , drop the act, and contemplate the Human as an Alien.

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
There's nothing magical about it. We see the other Council ships they're still fighting. The Geth are still occupied by the Council forces.

Council forces that could've been used in the fight against Sovereign.

If they weren't pointed the wrong way and escorting the Destiny Ascension, sure.

Likewise, the Destiny Ascension could've been used in the fight against Sovereign if it weren't dead in the water and fleeing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

There's nothing magical about it. We see the other Council ships they're still fighting. The Geth are still occupied by the Council forces.

And where do you see this?

You do not see a single Geth nor council ship by the point the citadel has opened and the alliance have entered the fight with sovereign - none - you do however see geth wreckage around the alliance ships which is kind of odd.

During the sequences of the DA's destruction, you see Council ships besides the DA still fighting.

You never see or hear anything about Geth breaking away and turning on Alliance forces.

[sponge56]

Saaziel wrote...


Too much is justifiable with this kind of argument. Not that i hate space operas , I'm indifferent regarding them as a genre. Nevertheless you'd still want a certain level of cogency to frame the setting . It help to convey your story when the suspension of disbelief is more manageable.

But i think the question of the Rise of humanity is not a problem of genre , more than it is a problem of whether or not its a necessary part of the story.


Believe or not ; You can still like something and criticize it.

Mind blowing i know , but the extent of ones opinions isn't limited by market exchanges (buying and selling things).

[

Part of the story?  How much content in mass effect is not 'part of the story'.  Archangel's mission in me2 isn't directly related to the main 'story' of the reapers yet people still enjoy it and its still a really good part of the game.   It's not like bioware have said we are awesome at everything we do.  All they said is that humans in ME are the best all rounders and have a drive which means they accomplish more than other species.  Or think of it as complacency.  The other races have been on the scene for such a long time that they have become entrenched in their narrow views about how stuff happens.  Thats what happens when nothing changes and adapts.  So you could even say that humanity isn't special, they just posess the drive which the other races havent had for thousands of years.

And I know you can like something and criticise it, but the BSN seems to mix up criticism with self hate.  Many people post as if they hate mass effect and its retarded, not making it look anything like criticism.  And humanity is at a centre of a story and is important..well so what?  There are other shows + games where humanity is **** and pointless.  Take farscape for instance, in that humans are basicaly bigoted pricks who arent ready for alien contact and all the aliens at the beginning think chricton is a degenarate incompetant from a lesser species.  Sure Bioware could have gon thew farscape route but why?  Whats wrong with an idea that when humans are united we accomplish great things?   

Modifié par sponge56, 15 septembre 2011 - 06:25 .

[Saaziel]

sponge56 wrote...

Part of the story? How much content in mass effect is not 'part of the story'.

A necessary part. The human rise to power is something that integral to the story; The entire political aspect of the game revolves around this .Garrus/Archangel isn't , you could skip it entirely and it wouldn't change a thing , the events of Me3 not withstanding. Moreover its a playable part, Humanity rise is background information above all else.

sponge56 wrote...
It's not like bioware have said we are awesome at everything we do. All they said is that humans in ME are the best all rounders and have a drive which means they accomplish more than other species.

I have no problem with humanity being "all rounders" , but then we shouldn't stand a chance with specialists in a given context. Turians are said to be military experts , for example, yet we've stood our ground in battle having never fought a space faring species before. The Overlord successes to gain control over the Geth where the Quarians aren't even capable, is an other example of humanity being better as opposed to being average.

If bioware isn't saying we're awesome at everything we do... then we shouldn't be awesome at everything we do. So far this "accomplishing more" , like you say , sounds an awful lot like "being awesome at everything" to me.

sponge56 wrote...
And humanity is at a centre of a story and is important..well so what? There are other shows + games where humanity is **** and pointless. Take farscape for instance, in that humans are basicaly bigoted pricks who arent ready for alien contact and all the aliens at the beginning think chricton is a degenarate incompetant from a lesser species.

Don't want to derail the tread to much but...

Crichton pretty much single handedly defeats every single other alien species out there, he's seen as more clueless than incapable. And the Peacekeepers are essentially humans dominating 1/2 the galaxy. Off the top of my head Babylon5 is the only show where humans are beaten down , but then again all other species are.

As for your question: "And humanity is at a centre of a story and is important..well so what?" I think its a good question but we shouldn't dance around the implications.

Fine , have humanity be the centre of everything, but then what ? You think that living on hundred of different worlds with the ability to modify ourselves genetically & cybernetically wouldn't cause a schism ? And just what defines us as a species , our appearance, our genetic code , our mannerism ?... To me these are far better themes to explore if you're going to place humanity first , than to create alien parodies and elevate man above them. Which sounds like childish overcompensation to me.

That's why i think Bioware should have done things differently. Not that there is anything wrong with what we got ,its just not that challenging as a story.

(edit: Typos , a lot of them ...)

Modifié par Saaziel, 15 septembre 2011 - 07:41 .

[111987]

Saaziel wrote...

I have no problem with humanity being "all rounders" , but then we shouldn't stand a chance with specialists in a given context. Turians are said to be military experts , for example, yet we've stood our ground in battle having never fought a space faring species before. The Overlord successes to gain control over the Geth where the Quarians aren't even capable, is an other example of humanity being better as opposed to being average.
 

To be fair though, the Turians would have wiped the floor with humanity had they sent in a larger portion of their fleet. Turians have 39 dreadnaughts compared to like 8 for humanity...so they definitely have a much stronger military.

And I think it's too early to judge if Overlord was a success. Would it have even worked on the true Geth? Could David communicate with the collective Geth consciousness, or would it be too much too process? Also it should be pointed out that an individual like David is incredibly rare. Furthermore, were it not for Shepard the project could have led to a technological apocalypse. So I wouldn't necesarrily say humanity is better than the Quarians at engineering.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

And I think it's too early to judge if Overlord was a success. Would it have even worked on the true Geth? Could David communicate with the collective Geth consciousness, or would it be too much too process? Also it should be pointed out that an individual like David is incredibly rare. Furthermore, were it not for Shepard the project could have led to a technological apocalypse. So I wouldn't necesarrily say humanity is better than the Quarians at engineering.

Considering that David couln't completely control the local geth, I really doubt that he would stand a chance against "a mind the size of a galactic arm". 

[sponge56]

Saaziel wrote...



A necessary part. The human rise to power is something that integral to the story; The entire political aspect of the game revolves around this .Garrus/Archangel isn't , you could skip it entirely and it wouldn't change a thing , the events of Me3 not withstanding. Moreover its a playable part, Humanity rise is background information above all else.



I have no problem with humanity being "all rounders" , but then we shouldn't stand a chance with specialists in a given context. Turians are said to be military experts , for example, yet we've stood our ground in battle having never fought a space faring species before. The Overlord successes to gain control over the Geth where the Quarians aren't even capable, is an other example of humanity being better as opposed to being average.

If bioware isn't saying we're awesome at everything we do... then we shouldn't be awesome at everything we do. So far this "accomplishing more" , like you say , sounds an awful lot like "being awesome at everything" to me.



Don't want to derail the tread to much but...

Crichton pretty much single handedly defeats every single other alien species out there, he's seen as more clueless than incapable. And the Peacekeepers are essentially humans dominating 1/2 the galaxy. Off the top of my head Babylon5 is the only show where humans are beaten down , but then again all other species are.

As for you question: "And humanity is at a centre of a story and is important..well so what?" I think its a good question but we shouldn't dance around the implications.

Fine , have humanity be the centre of everything, but then what ? You think that living on hundred of different worlds with the ability to modify ourselves genetically & cybernetically wouldn't cause a schism ? And just what defines us as a species , our appearance, our genetic code , our mannerism ?... To me these are far better themes to explore if you're going to place humanity first , than to create alien parodies and elevate man above them. Which sounds like childish overcompensation to me.

That's why i think Bioware should have done differently. Not that there is anything wrong with what we got ,its just not that challenging as a story.

Ok, I grant you its important to the story but a great deal has been accomplished when we have become motivated.  Its not far fetched to think that humans managed to unite themselves and colonise other worlds quickly, and remember that humanity isnt as united in ME as everyone thinks it is.  Individual worlds were often disputed by the EU, China and the UNAS.  Even in the first contact war humanity stood about bickering over what to do next while the alliance got fed up and dealt with it.

Also beating the Turians in the FCW isnt as far fetched as it sounds.  History is littered with cases of the big bad  countries being defeated by smaller ones.  American revolution, vietnam etc.  During the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries Britain had the biggest and best navy in the world, widely regarded by other countries as being the most powerful.  However, the Royal Navy lost battles just like evryone else, just like its fully feasible for the Turians to have lost in the FCW against humanity (rember it wasnt really a fully fledged war, more like a battle).

On the chricton point I was referring to humanity as it is presented as a race (when he gets back to earth) not how he is as an individual person, which farscape makes clear people are people no matter what race they are.  Oh and on your final point remeber that it isnt philosophy, its a videogame.  A good movie or a book may be able to addres those points you listed as being important to you, but I think they might be abit of a low priority to adress in a game.