23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Archonsg]

JennDragonAge wrote...

darkway1 wrote...Well worth a read."If someone gives a well thought out criticism, something that is tangible, those are the people that we try to reward as much as possible. And we want to reward them, because that feedback is how we make better games," http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-07-bioware-we-havent-had-a-breakthrough-success

I wonder if it matters, but in the article they say, "That's why you will soon be able to play free DLC that alters the ending of Mass Effect 3."He didn't say clarifies; he said alters....I wonder if that means there will actually be changes to what currently exists versus just elaboration. Either a shred of hope, or he misspoke.

That is just it.
We also have several articles from "professional review" sites that also headlines the ECDLC as an alternate ending DLC, as opposed to the official statement and FAQ.

Again, since there is no two way discussion between fans and Bioware, can you see anything but confusion on the issue?

What myself and many others on this thread, are hoping, is that Bioware do release an alternate ending DLC instead of one that just expands on the current ending, which is the root of all this controversy.

Modifié par Archonsg, 17 juin 2012 - 01:18 .

[V-rcingetorix]

[quote]JennDragonAge wrote...

[quote]darkway1 wrote...

Either a shred of hope, or he misspoke.
[/quote]


I'll take a shred of hope, with a side of optimism, please

Seriously, Bioware's history does have a trend to doing what is good for their future profit. Alienating a vocal minority, or a minorly vocal majority, is not cost productive. It would, pardon the pun, have a mass effect on thier profit.

Do I hate Bioware for this? No. They do what they must to survive. If that happens to benefit me as well, all the better.
Inversely, does Bioware hate me for being a whiny gamer? I don't think it's personal on either side. My dissatisfaction comes from them, and their dissatisfaction from people like me.

Impersonal irritation, pragmatic thinking, feedback from players who care about the game...although I know no one will be 100% happy, this sounds like a win-win to me.

[V-rcingetorix]

I would like some feedback, maybe a "Good points y'all, I'll get back to you little people when I feel like it" or maybe just a *bump*? Too much Terry Pratchett?

[BlueStorm83]

Dragonblaze420 wrote...

all nay saying aside i found me3 to be incredibly enjoyable the new weapons mod weight mechanics general game play story

---  Hell Yes, Mass Effect 3 was AMAZING.  Problem is they forgot to put in its ending, and instead put in the demo for "Ennui and Malaise; A Story of Futility."

[BlueStorm83]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

*snipped*

Please do not take this as criticism, Bioware, take this as praise! To maintain such quality of epicness throughout most of the game is spectacular! The fact that many people are disappointed only proves my point; we had become accustomed to the legendary height of ME3, and were disappointed in a plunge in quality.

We have faith in you Bioware, you can do better, you HAVE done better. Up until the last 10 or so, it WAS better! Plus, we're willing to give you a second chance, BECAUSE you have done better, reliably!

---  DO take that as Criticism, but remember, Criticism isn't the same as Condemnation.  People criticize when they believe something can and should be better, and want to help it get there.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Here's an interesting question. Anyone read the details on the war assets in the tech lab? I was reading the Alliance assets and for the one fleet (can't remember which one right now, but it's the one I think you sacrifice part of if you save the council and Destiny Ascension in ME1)--anyway, for that listing it says they didn't have time to rebuild it before the Reapers came. Ok, wait, they had at least 2 years and then whatever time it was between ME2's beginning and ME3. No time to rebuild but they can build this super big "whatever it does" Crucible?

Ok, and anyone ever wondered about the name Destiny Ascension? Ok, the star kid says people's destiny is to be ascended.....hmmmmm.

I actually found the inability to build more ships believeable; after all, during World War II America was only able to retool it sassembly lines when an actual war was going on. Obviously, there are some counter examples, but Liberty class transports were not being churned out every few days during the Roaring Twenties.

Sacrificing part of a fleet to save the Destiny Ascension seemed logical to me then (will continue to do that in replays). The drive core to the Normandy could have paid for a few thousand fighters, and the Normandy was high-end gear, so let's say the resources for one frigate=50 fighters. Therefore, losing 8 frigates would be the same cost as 400 fighters.

Can you imagine any nation mass-producing 400 fighters during peacetime? Everyone else would get nervous, missiles would be lobbed...am I making sense?

Actually, you totally missed my point.  They found time afterward to build something that they had no clue about (the Crucible) in a very short period of time (and yes, I know it wasn't just humans building it, but didn't rebuild the fleets or partially rebuild them.  And it doesn't say they worried about rebuilding the fleet in peacetime-there acturally were rules to go by as to who could build what.  Each species was allowed to build a certain number of Dreadnoughts and so forth. 

And I seriously doubt the Council and others would have objected that the Alliance was rebuilding what was destroyed in protecting them and The Destiny  Ascension.  I really can't see that anyone would have told the Alliance they couldn't rebuild after all the lives lost in doing that.

I had no problem with sacrificing for the DA or the council-I never said I did.  I am saying they had years to rebuild and couldn't, but within a very short time were able to build the Crucible.

And there are many references to the Alliance being financially able to procure almost anything (Samantha).

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Here's an interesting question. Anyone read the details on the war assets in the tech lab? I was reading the Alliance assets and for the one fleet (can't remember which one right now, but it's the one I think you sacrifice part of if you save the council and Destiny Ascension in ME1)--anyway, for that listing it says they didn't have time to rebuild it before the Reapers came. Ok, wait, they had at least 2 years and then whatever time it was between ME2's beginning and ME3. No time to rebuild but they can build this super big "whatever it does" Crucible?

Ok, and anyone ever wondered about the name Destiny Ascension? Ok, the star kid says people's destiny is to be ascended.....hmmmmm.

I actually found the inability to build more ships believeable; after all, during World War II America was only able to retool it sassembly lines when an actual war was going on. Obviously, there are some counter examples, but Liberty class transports were not being churned out every few days during the Roaring Twenties.

Sacrificing part of a fleet to save the Destiny Ascension seemed logical to me then (will continue to do that in replays). The drive core to the Normandy could have paid for a few thousand fighters, and the Normandy was high-end gear, so let's say the resources for one frigate=50 fighters. Therefore, losing 8 frigates would be the same cost as 400 fighters.

Can you imagine any nation mass-producing 400 fighters during peacetime? Everyone else would get nervous, missiles would be lobbed...am I making sense?

"am I making sense?"

Yes!

It's a simple fact of past wars that you replace what you lose because you need it. And if you have more than the other guy then a battle of attrition will end in the favour of the one who can replace their losses the fastest. Sort of. Napolean once said that victory goes not to the bigger army, but to the side with the better shots...... or something similar along those lines.

On the matter of mass producing 400 planes in peace time though. In principle yes it would make ppl nervous. It would make them especially nervous if they built carriers and/or air refueling planes. Governments would go into meltdown however if they discovered the country making those planes had diverted fuel from the commercial sector to the military to power those planes as such an action would suggest mobilisation in the not so distant future.

Sry, bit of a Tom Clancy fan. He supports the 'watch what they do with the oil to figure out what their plans are', approach.

Again, he missed my point.  The Alliance lost those ships in defending the council and the Destiny Ascension.  They could have replaced them.  There were treaties/understandings in place as to how many dreadnoughts and such the races could have.  But what I found most odd what in over 2 years they had not replaced/rebuilt the fleet, but then found time after very quickly to build the MacGuffin (crucible) in the sky (yes, with a lot of help).  The listing I referred to says they did not have time to rebuild.  I found this odd.  One of many odd things.  And it wasn't about amassing some disproportionate fleet-it was replacing what was lost.

[BlueStorm83]

--- Yeah, it is rather odd that the Crucible could be built in a matter of months, especially considering that they had no idea how, whereas the Fleets couldn't be replaced in years, despite having shipyards and machines and skilled craftsmen who actually know how do make them for a living.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

I love Buzz Aldrin in the end zone, he's one of my heroes and I love his taking an active part in firing the imagination of a space-opera. I hope his part was right, "Maybe jsut one more story."

One of the biggest misuses of a hero as an actor that I know of.

That scene takes place 10,000 years in the future and it's clear from what he says that they still do not have interstellar flight, if even space travel.  In the Final Hours, there is also dialogue from the game's flow chart for I think it was Vendetta where he was to say, the crucible ushered in a galactic dark ages.

So, though I really do like Buzz Aldrin, I feel they truly misused him.  It's kind of a trite ending, in my opinion and leaves me to wonder if the whole thing was supposed to be a bedtime story, a la The Princess Bride.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juin 2012 - 02:06 .

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

JennDragonAge wrote...

darkway1 wrote...Well worth a read."If someone gives a well thought out criticism, something that is tangible, those are the people that we try to reward as much as possible. And we want to reward them, because that feedback is how we make better games," http://www.gamesindu...through-success

I wonder if it matters, but in the article they say, "That's why you will soon be able to play free DLC that alters the ending of Mass Effect 3."He didn't say clarifies; he said alters....I wonder if that means there will actually be changes to what currently exists versus just elaboration. Either a shred of hope, or he misspoke.

That is just it.
We also have several articles from "professional review" sites that also headlines the ECDLC as an alternate ending DLC, as opposed to the official statement and FAQ.

Again, since there is no two way discussion between fans and Bioware, can you see anything but confusion on the issue?

What myself and many others on this thread, are hoping, is that Bioware do release an alternate ending DLC instead of one that just expands on the current ending, which is the root of all this controversy.

Yes, exactly.  The problem is nothing we read means a thing especially when it's viewed alongside all the other things we were told.  Confusion is constant in the absence of a real dialogue, as in true conversation.  Ever had the silent treatment from anyone?   It's maddening and infuriating.  People have been begging all over the place for some real back and forth so there could be understanding-this is what adults do when they disagree.  But, nothing.

[BlueStorm83]

--- So, what exactly is the Final Hours? I haven't seen it, myself.

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

Dragonblaze420 wrote...

all nay saying aside i found me3 to be incredibly enjoyable the new weapons mod weight mechanics general game play story

---  Hell Yes, Mass Effect 3 was AMAZING.  Problem is they forgot to put in its ending, and instead put in the demo for "Ennui and Malaise; A Story of Futility."

OMG-I nearly spit up my dinner on this one.....

[3DandBeyond]

BlueStorm83 wrote...

--- So, what exactly is the Final Hours? I haven't seen it, myself.

It's a behind the scenes app for ME3 for the ipad maybe iphone.  My cousin has an ipad from work and we had bought the app for it.

Among other things that is where you could find one of the dev's (Walters or Gamble, I'd have to look again) notepads that says things about the ending, like, "lots of questions from everyone" and another with the word "Matrix" on it.

There is a story flow chart (or 2) in it with some of the dialogue for certain "characters", but not all the dialogue. 

Edited:

The notepad was Mac Walter's and it says on it a couple of times "Brave New World", the lots of questions quote and brave new world points to the words "end of the first Matrix".

It also talks about Shepard dying and asks why he had to die and Shepard alive and a sense of hope.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juin 2012 - 02:23 .

[V-rcingetorix]

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

[quote]V-rcingetorix wrote...

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[/quote]

Again, he missed my point.  The Alliance lost those ships in defending the council and the Destiny Ascension.  They could have replaced them.  There were treaties/understandings in place as to how many dreadnoughts and such the races could have.  But what I found most odd what in over 2 years they had not replaced/rebuilt the fleet, but then found time after very quickly to build the MacGuffin (crucible) in the sky (yes, with a lot of help).  The listing I referred to says they did not have time to rebuild.  I found this odd.  One of many odd things.  And it wasn't about amassing some disproportionate fleet-it was replacing what was lost.

[/quote]


I think I understand your point: if they had the capability to build the Crucible in a matter of months, why were they unable to rebuild their military to preset, preagreed upon levels.

I admit it's kinda fishy, but to me it is too close to reality.

I'll give an example:

Before WWII, there was a lot of rumbling in the South Pacific about war coming. No one wanted to believe it, but some instalations (like radar in Pear Harbor) were set up, just to be sure. Among those areas NOT fitted up to full potential were the Wake Islands. Additionally, via the Lend Lease Act, the USA lended some ships to England for its war with Germany (or was that WWI? It gets a little fuzzy for me).

Now, at that time it had been around 20-25 years since WWI, and Pearl Harbor had the majority of ships dedicated to the Pacific ocean. Dec. 7 occurs, and wipes out a high percentage of American warships, missing a few repair facilities, and the aircraft carriers.

Even with wartime production, it took the USA a full year to replace most those ships.

In the Mass Effect universe, fleets were *reduced* in strength, not almost obliterated. Other fleets are already patrolling the galaxy (including the big bad Turian fleet), and no one wanted to believe another war was coming.

Who would make repairing the fleet a priority, if the main goal would be to become an economic powerhouse equal to the other nation/races?

So, my reasons boil down to:
1. Most of the fleets are still there.
2. Making warships requires resources, perceived as needed with greater urgency elsewhere. and
3. No one believes another war, let alone Armageddon is coming.

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Snipped...

Those quotes are all messed up so I don't know which one is yours. 

I am not going to compare this to WWII.  I am sorry, that has no bearing on this.  We aren't talking about what the US did in the 1940's.  The US at the time was isolationist.  Most wanted to see the war as a European or Asian thing and wanted the US to stay out of it.  But the US still had a major fleet-the problem was no one believed the US would be attacked and most of the assets were in port at the same time.  But, it took the US a year in the 1940s to amasse a fleet.  The Alliance needn't have seen the Reapers as a threat, but had a reason for building up the fleets to begin with, so why wouldn't they want them restored?  They'd been sending Shepard to fight the Geth that they and the council still perceived as a threat.

The Alliance lost major assets in sacrifice to save The Destiny Ascension and the Council and the Citadel.  It doesn't say someone might have objected so they didn't rebuild.  The asset listing is for the Third Fleed and says they did not have time to rebuild before the reapers attacked.  Again, they did not have time to rebuild a fleet, but then found all this time to build some device that they had no clue about.  It says nothing about lacking the resources or funding to build them-it says they didn't have time.

And in fact, Hackett and the Alliance mostly believed Shepard that there was a threat coming.  Hackett had sent Shepard to retrieve Dr. Kenson in The Arrival and knew all about the reaper's attempts to use the Mass Relay there.  Hackett did believe Shepard.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juin 2012 - 02:55 .

[V-rcingetorix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Snipped...

Those quotes are all messed up so I don't know which one is yours. 

Mine started with: "I think...."
My apologies about the quotes; I'm not familiar with the format quite yet :/

Fair enough; I'm a history major, so I kinda tend to throw that kind of stuff out.

Keeping the game simplified is somewhat irritating to me, I prefer a lot of in depth explanations (loved the codex entries in DAO for that reason). I can imagine that there was a lot of political reasons to not repair the fleet, but you're right, there was a lot of time (about 3 years if I remember correctly).

Still, would the Alliance have the facilities to do all that? It did take 30 years to make the Alliance fleet what it was by ME1...and the MacGuffin had all the combined resources of the galaxy thrown at it, plus Adml Hackett mentioned that the plans, once decoded, were surprisingly simple. Speaking of which, wasn't Adml Hackett the only admiral (aside from Anderson) to believe Sheperd?

I agree that the Alliance should have had enough time to repair the fleets. Compared to the plotholes one could drive a Crucible through, this one is minor. BUt hey, that's my opinion. Shutting up

[3DandBeyond]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Snipped...

Those quotes are all messed up so I don't know which one is yours. 

Mine started with: "I think...."
My apologies about the quotes; I'm not familiar with the format quite yet :/

Fair enough; I'm a history major, so I kinda tend to throw that kind of stuff out.

Keeping the game simplified is somewhat irritating to me, I prefer a lot of in depth explanations (loved the codex entries in DAO for that reason). I can imagine that there was a lot of political reasons to not repair the fleet, but you're right, there was a lot of time (about 3 years if I remember correctly).

Still, would the Alliance have the facilities to do all that? It did take 30 years to make the Alliance fleet what it was by ME1...and the MacGuffin had all the combined resources of the galaxy thrown at it, plus Adml Hackett mentioned that the plans, once decoded, were surprisingly simple. Speaking of which, wasn't Adml Hackett the only admiral (aside from Anderson) to believe Sheperd?

I agree that the Alliance should have had enough time to repair the fleets. Compared to the plotholes one could drive a Crucible through, this one is minor. BUt hey, that's my opinion. Shutting up

I tend to think since the Crucible seemed to be such a colossal wasted effort with no clear purpose and then based on plans someone created but no one knows who, and the ending is based on it and 3 ridiculous artificial choices, everything that points to it just keeps proving it makes no sense.

I did say that yes they put others to work on it of course.  But that whole thing where Hackett says it was easy to build is another contrivance.  As someone else pointed out just like in Independence Day where an Apple computer can easily interface with alien computers. 

The Crucible as I see it is one major plothole in its current configuration.  It is this amazing all purpose whatchamakalit.  It can alter DNA by shooting out a beam.  It is the amazing presto chango controllomatic.  And at its finest, it can destroy all synthetic life as well as kill Shepard unless the player plays multiplayer-then the tube that explodes in Shepard's doesn't kill Shepard.  However, that same destructo beam might just vaporize Earth.

I could see that the plans would be easy to understand and the Crucible easy to build if it were just a weapon, but nooo.  It has amazing powers so someone must have sprinkled fairy dust on it.  I mean the Crucible changes the star kid and then does magical things, but it was easy to build.  And ships apparently are way tougher.

You don't have to shut up-I'm not criticizing you.  I'm criticizing lack of logic as I see it in the game.

[V-rcingetorix]

3DandBeyond wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

Snipped...

Those quotes are all messed up so I don't know which one is yours. 

_snipped_

The Crucible as I see it is one major plothole in its current configuration.  It is this amazing all purpose whatchamakalit.  It can alter DNA by shooting out a beam.  It is the amazing presto chango controllomatic.  And at its finest, it can destroy all synthetic life as well as kill Shepard unless the player plays multiplayer-then the tube that explodes in Shepard's doesn't kill Shepard.  However, that same destructo beam might just vaporize Earth.

I could see that the plans would be easy to understand and the Crucible easy to build if it were just a weapon, but nooo.  It has amazing powers so someone must have sprinkled fairy dust on it.  I mean the Crucible changes the star kid and then does magical things, but it was easy to build.  And ships apparently are way tougher.

Ahh, now I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

The way I see it, the Crucible was writer-designed as a super weapon, not a super-plothole. Now, this super-weapon, to my mind, SHOULD have had three different configurations (to keep it with the current ending, but I'll get there). Each configuration should be similar, but slightly different; eg the Renegade has more external weapons, Paragon has more shields. As the game progresses, more is built (depending on the side-missions done, and the choices therein) until the Crucible can use the Catalyst. Using the Citadel as the Catalyst is acceptable, to me, as it has already been demonstrated to be a Mass Relay.

Continue using the Catalyst/Crucible, and get hit with two decisions: (renegade) Destory or (paragon) Shield, where the former makes all the Reapers core drives self destruct (including whatever's near them) and the latter forces the reapers to put up their own shields to lock them in place. Up the ante, so the more renegade/paragon you were during the two previous games increases the certainty (and collateral damage) done to/by the Reapers.

The Third option should have a manipulation of those shields, so everyone can focus on one reaper at a time w/o worrying about getting shot at by a thousand other reapers.

A Third option completionist addendum (all side-quests done in ME1-3, all characters saved) would hit a shut-down switch, rendering all Reaper tech (directly linked, thus excluding EDI and Geth forces) inoperable. Leaving its original makers is a bit cheap, but usable (all previous cycles helped make it?), but I'd love it if the original designers were the species of the Keepers. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

That closes a lot of loopholes imho.:innocent:

EDIT: for clarity

Wasted effort out of game, yeah. I take apx 35 hours to get to the point where my decisions are moot. In game, I don't know if it makes a big difference, in all cases, Shep dies (except possibly one, which isn't even the ultimate Paragon!). As Legion would say: "No data available."

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 17 juin 2012 - 04:16 .

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Here's an interesting question. Anyone read the details on the war assets in the tech lab? I was reading the Alliance assets and for the one fleet (can't remember which one right now, but it's the one I think you sacrifice part of if you save the council and Destiny Ascension in ME1)--anyway, for that listing it says they didn't have time to rebuild it before the Reapers came. Ok, wait, they had at least 2 years and then whatever time it was between ME2's beginning and ME3. No time to rebuild but they can build this super big "whatever it does" Crucible?

Ok, and anyone ever wondered about the name Destiny Ascension? Ok, the star kid says people's destiny is to be ascended.....hmmmmm.

I actually found the inability to build more ships believeable; after all, during World War II America was only able to retool it sassembly lines when an actual war was going on. Obviously, there are some counter examples, but Liberty class transports were not being churned out every few days during the Roaring Twenties.

Sacrificing part of a fleet to save the Destiny Ascension seemed logical to me then (will continue to do that in replays). The drive core to the Normandy could have paid for a few thousand fighters, and the Normandy was high-end gear, so let's say the resources for one frigate=50 fighters. Therefore, losing 8 frigates would be the same cost as 400 fighters.

Can you imagine any nation mass-producing 400 fighters during peacetime? Everyone else would get nervous, missiles would be lobbed...am I making sense?

"am I making sense?"

Yes!

It's a simple fact of past wars that you replace what you lose because you need it. And if you have more than the other guy then a battle of attrition will end in the favour of the one who can replace their losses the fastest. Sort of. Napolean once said that victory goes not to the bigger army, but to the side with the better shots...... or something similar along those lines.

On the matter of mass producing 400 planes in peace time though. In principle yes it would make ppl nervous. It would make them especially nervous if they built carriers and/or air refueling planes. Governments would go into meltdown however if they discovered the country making those planes had diverted fuel from the commercial sector to the military to power those planes as such an action would suggest mobilisation in the not so distant future.

Sry, bit of a Tom Clancy fan. He supports the 'watch what they do with the oil to figure out what their plans are', approach.

Again, he missed my point.  The Alliance lost those ships in defending the council and the Destiny Ascension.  They could have replaced them.  There were treaties/understandings in place as to how many dreadnoughts and such the races could have.  But what I found most odd what in over 2 years they had not replaced/rebuilt the fleet, but then found time after very quickly to build the MacGuffin (crucible) in the sky (yes, with a lot of help).  The listing I referred to says they did not have time to rebuild.  I found this odd.  One of many odd things.  And it wasn't about amassing some disproportionate fleet-it was replacing what was lost.

I think the problem could have been that after Sovy went down the council tagged it as a Geth ship. Since they didn't believe the Reapers were coming they probably built some new ships but had a ten year plan to amass the number that they lost/have to replace as older ships.

A further problem could have been the number of shipyards available to build new warships. The number of military contracts available to the companies with the heavy industries available to build them etc.

Basically the job to replace them could have gotten caught up in beuracracy. I know over the past 3 yrs the uk has had problems figuring out what VTOL jets to purchase since they keep getting differing recommendations about requirements for the future operations of those jets. Partly in relation to the carrier they are also trying to purchase.

[V-rcingetorix]

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[quote]Redbelle wrote...

[quote]V-rcingetorix wrote...

[quote]3DandBeyond wrote...

[/quote]


[/quote]

[/quote]

_snipped_

That works for me Still a plothole, but an understandable one.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 17 juin 2012 - 04:17 .

[Archonsg]

You know what makes me sad?
Seeing sll these great discussions and I am not home on the PC to contribute.

Don't think my poor phone can handle an analysis of the Crucible. ;-)

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

You know what makes me sad?
Seeing sll these great discussions and I am not home on the PC to contribute.

Don't think my poor phone can handle an analysis of the Crucible. ;-)

The way I see it the Crucible is just a major distraction so that all these awesome minds and all these resources are being wasted on something that may not do anything.  Yeah, we see it do something at the end, but I'd sooner throw the thing at a Reaper than make one of those awesome choices.

I mean yeah ok, let's discuss Earth in the 40s and imagine if someone came along after the US fleet had been decimated at Pearl Harbor and said "I found these plans laying around in some dump site.  Don't know what they're for.  It looks like a weapon-yeah I know I'm no weapon's expert, just an archaelogist, but still it looks like a weapon.  It will take care of everything, maybe, possibly, perhaps.  Let's build it instead of wasting money and effort on building stuff we know like warships.  Let's take all the brightest minds, all our steel, rubber, fuel, and put it into building this thing."  And then the thing doesn't turn out to really be a weapon necessarily at all.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juin 2012 - 05:37 .

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

I think the problem could have been that after Sovy went down the council tagged it as a Geth ship. Since they didn't believe the Reapers were coming they probably built some new ships but had a ten year plan to amass the number that they lost/have to replace as older ships.

A further problem could have been the number of shipyards available to build new warships. The number of military contracts available to the companies with the heavy industries available to build them etc.

Basically the job to replace them could have gotten caught up in beuracracy. I know over the past 3 yrs the uk has had problems figuring out what VTOL jets to purchase since they keep getting differing recommendations about requirements for the future operations of those jets. Partly in relation to the carrier they are also trying to purchase.

That was the council, not the Alliance.  The way I played ME1, Shepard had the Alliance move in and save the council and the Destiny Ascension.  So, my war asset listing for the third fleet in the Alliance says they didn't have time to rebuild before the Reapers attacked.  They had 3 years or more.  I know you are both right and things could have happened, but I think they were already on a war footing.  It would be more like someone deciding after Pearl Harbor to not rebuild the fleet.

It's not a major point, it is just one of those things that made no sense to me.  And Hackett seems pretty much to be running the show-he knew there was a threat and people did still see the geth as a threat as well as pirates and so on.  A lot of people in the Alliance didn't seem to want the Normandy SR1 built but it was done. 

I can understand there being problems in getting things built and that makes sense, but again the point is they managed to circumvent all of this logical stuff (beauracracy and what have you) for something that may not even work.  If it was obviously a weapon I might even understand that.  But for it to turn out to be Mr. Magic Gun thingy.  I mean I really want to know where some of those people trained that were able to figure out blueprints to make a DNA synthesizer.

And can you imagine the size of the shipyard for that thing?  It's just a curious thing.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 juin 2012 - 05:42 .

[Redbelle]

3DandBeyond wrote...

That was the council, not the Alliance.  The way I played ME1, Shepard had the Alliance move in and save the council and the Destiny Ascension.  So, my war asset listing for the third fleet in the Alliance says they didn't have time to rebuild before the Reapers attacked.  They had 3 years or more.  I know you are both right and things could have happened, but I think they were already on a war footing.  It would be more like someone deciding after Pearl Harbor to not rebuild the fleet.

It's not a major point, it is just one of those things that made no sense to me.  And Hackett seems pretty much to be running the show-he knew there was a threat and people did still see the geth as a threat as well as pirates and so on.  A lot of people in the Alliance didn't seem to want the Normandy SR1 built but it was done. 

I can understand there being problems in getting things built and that makes sense, but again the point is they managed to circumvent all of this logical stuff (beauracracy and what have you) for something that may not even work.  If it was obviously a weapon I might even understand that.  But for it to turn out to be Mr. Magic Gun thingy.  I mean I really want to know where some of those people trained that were able to figure out blueprints to make a DNA synthesizer.

And can you imagine the size of the shipyard for that thing?  It's just a curious thing.

Maybe all those top brass officers at Shep's hearing who proved to be so useless at their jobs were responsible and taking them out left Hackett in overall charge of the Alliance military. If only Shep had done that in ME2 Hackett could have rebuilt the fleet and bulked it up despite the ratio the coucil imposed on all council species. Oh well.

[V-rcingetorix]

Redbelle wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
snip

Maybe all those top brass officers at Shep's hearing who proved to be so useless at their jobs were responsible and taking them out left Hackett in overall charge of the Alliance military. If only Shep had done that in ME2 Hackett could have rebuilt the fleet and bulked it up despite the ratio the coucil imposed on all council species. Oh well.

3D has a point, which I have argued against. But, in WWII (srry, have to bring it in again) Hitler was able to get around treaties by first making "pocket cruisers" and emergency response teams. Once those were in place, he just ignored  the treaties and everyone else pretty much tried political pressure...not much use as he was bent on war.

Still say it's understandable that the Alliance wouldn't want to push their luck by mass producing war vessels, even to their legal limit.

Modifié par V-rcingetorix, 17 juin 2012 - 07:02 .