148 réponses à ce sujet

[Creepter]

Saving this for a later use.

[TookYoCookies]

obtuse4ngle wrote...

humes spork wrote...
Why are we here?

Again, a well-done narrative can addressed. The question isn't answered in the final game as is. I still don't know why Shepard is on Earth at the beginning of ME3.

humes spork wrote...
Why am I not on Earth?

What. Why would the gamer want to be on Earth in a game marketed as a space opera? Both ME1 and ME2 both do not start out on Earth.

humes spork wrote...
Where is Earth?

In the Milky Way galaxy.

humes spork wrote...
Do these Reaper guys attack Earth too? What happens to Earth?

Again, narrative can address as it did with questions like "What happens to Thessia? Or Palaven?"  

The Reapers are attacking the entire galaxy, not just Earth. I don't understand why Shepard suddenly wants to save Earth, not the entire galaxy. (And please don't argue here that Shepard wants to save the entire galaxy; it's clear in game that s/he is only doing it because it's convenient in order to save Earth.)

If the writers removed all Earth-centricism:-
* We would still hear the reports of the Reapers attacking various homeworlds (including Earth)
* We would still get the opportunity to visit Earth (as we did Thessia and Tuchanka)

humes spork wrote...
Moreover, it fails to convey the threat, either in scope or to Earth in particular.

From what we see on the Citadel and the homeworlds we visit, we can get this "scope."
Again, where does this Earth-centricism come from? Why does Shepard care about Earth in particular?

humes spork wrote...
And, Anderson? Try the QEC conversation later as well, when he says he's organizing and forming a resistance against the Reapers on Earth to buy time for Shepard.

*sigh* Please see your quote on ad hoc strategies. At the beginning of the game, this "forming a resistance" strategy is not Anderson's strategy. He makes it up as he goes.

When taking a step back and looking at the Narrative, the only reason i can come up with that makes sense for the contrived attempt to make Earth relevant in ME3 comes down to marketability. 

"Mass Effect 3: Retake the Galaxy" - Niche, will target mostly people already enthralled with the series, and people that tend to favor sci-fi fiction i.e. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. most of which are (f they play games) already customers of the franchise. New consumers wont be as attracted to this as attempting to indenify with 'the galaxy' would be abstract for most people unknown to the fiction/sci-fi.

"Mass Effect 3: Retake Earth" - Much broader appeal to the average game consumer; fight for something they know and understand: dfend your planet, your species, your freinds/family, your home. Some one not connected to the seres immediately has something to identify with, and now becomes a potential customer. 

It's insulting that they actually changed the whole of the narrative to fit for a new intended target demographic . Instead of the game being unique, innovative, and awesome, like it was in Mass Effect 1 and 2. We now have RPG game play mechanics toned down, an overall narrative that doesnt make sense, and a video game with out an ending. 

@obtuse4ngle i Lol'd at you changing the tense of my name in your reference. +5 for grammar 

Modifié par TookYoCookies, 27 avril 2012 - 04:24 .

[TookYoCookies]

Bump for forums.

[Dendio1]

Guys take the video for what it is, but dont read into it too seriously. Smudboy is good for what he does and any game under his scrutiny is doomed to fail. Thats what makes it a good watch. He's like Yahtzee, but longer and even more nitpicky. Im not saying he doesn't have some good points, but dont obsess over the little stuff.

Modifié par Dendio1, 27 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[obtuse4ngle]

Seboist wrote...
Indoctrination ended up being just the covenient BS contrivence to prevent any kind of real player choice and to cut corners.  What they did to the Geth,Cerberus,Rachni and Udina was horrendous.

There was never any tension over the possibility that one of your squadmates or allies would end up indoctrinated either. Instead the ones who were indoctrinated were EVUL and were those who the average player wanted to kill anyway(TIM and Udina).

In ME1, nobody expects Benezia to be indoctrinated. In fact, Shepard and friends are merely under the misconception that she's "doing bad things." When you meet her, especially with Liara present, there's a bit of a hesitation to kill her at the mere fact that this is actually a good person who is losing her mind.

In ME2, when we hit the derelict Reaper in ME2 and hear recordings of indoctrinated people, we can hear their struggle with sanity. Shepard has to kill them but the gamer still experiences a bit of reluctance knowing that the choices the indoctrinated make are not theirs. They are people with hopes and dreams and families. In short, indoctrination could've happened to anyone.

In ME3, it's indoctrination for everyone!
Udina tried to kill the Council in order to get support for his dying planet. He's indoctrinated!
TIM has different ideas than Shepard. He's indoctrinated!
Kai Leng is specist. He's indoctrinated!

The problem is, none of these people needed to be indoctrinated. The writers could've just used them to support the idea of how the whole galaxy is going to s*** and people are making rash decisions to insure survival.

Yes, about team mate indoctrination. I mean, how surreal if, due to some choices Shepard made throughout the game, Liara turn out to be the last Banshee Shepard has to fight? Or if Marauder Shields had actually turned out to be Garrus?
...
...

Wait. My head asploded.
...
Garrus Vakarian = Best. Final. Boss. EVAR!!!!!!

TookYoCookies wrote...
@obtuse4ngle i Lol'd at you changing the tense of my name in your reference. +5 for grammar [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

You may take my cookies, but you'd never have my grammar!

Dendio1 wrote...

Guys take the video for what it is, but dont read into it too seriously. Smudboy is good for what he does and any game under his scrutiny is doomed to fail. Thats what makes it a good watch. He's like Yahtzee, but longer and even more nitpicky. Im not saying he doesn't have some good points, but dont obsess over the little stuff.

No worries. We're only taking the main points that resonated with us and analyzing them from different points of view. A little constructive criticism is good for everyone.

Modifié par obtuse4ngle, 27 avril 2012 - 05:05 .

[ed87]

Nice!

These kind of videos are always entertaining for me, even though it is basically beating a dead horse

Modifié par ed87, 27 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Tleining]

Opsrbest wrote...

Thanix Cannons - The Thanix's core is a liquid alloy of iron, uranium, and tungsten suspended in an electromagnetic field powered by element zero. [i]The molten metal, accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of light, solidifies into a projectile as it is fired, hitting targets with enough force to pierce any known shield or armor. The gun can fire reliably every five seconds.
*snip*
A really big tube with a Thanix Core inside. And other stuff as well.

Ok, so you define a HW as a Cain, rocket Launcher or other weapon. Thats fine. Did you miss the portion of the game where you shoot the Cain at the Vulnerable non plated portion of the Hades Cannon/Reaper? Where you can visably see the projectile from the Cain go flying through the air, into the Hades Cannon/Reaper? Where it the dissapears before a detonation is noted? That even though the Cain destroyes the Hades Cannon/Reaper, the Hades Cannon is still intact? That it does the same thing as the "bombs"(which are Heavy Weapons btw) used on the Reapers on Palaven?

Thanix Missiles: Is this a Joke? You know how a railgun works, right? Now if you put a Railgun into a Rocket, do you get a Railgun-Rocket? Is this in any way effective?
How is molten metal inside a Rocket in any way as effective as firing molten metal at a fraction of the speed of light at a Target? Plus: This is Head-Canon. It isn't presented like that in the Game. Plothole.

*headdesk*
On Palaven they destroyed Reapers with Bombs. On Rannoch we destroyed a Reaper with an Orbital Bombardment. On Tuchanka we destroyed a Reaper by siccing our Pet Maw on it.
So how do we know that Heavy Weapons (Cain) can do damage to the HadesCannon/Reaper.

[Creepter]

What a couple of depressing videos to listen to.
How did you get to this, Mass Effect?

[STEEEEVE]

Smudboy just blocked me from commenting on his videos for pointing out things he said that were clearly wrong. I'm anti-ending, but this guy is pathetic.

[obtuse4ngle]

Let's hear them, STEEEEVE.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

At this point...meh.

[jimbo32]

I dislike the ending as much as anyone, and I'm certainly not one of those who thinks that ME3 is flawless apart from the last 10 minutes. But wow, this guy hates it all. And ME2 as well.

So here's my question - why bother creating and uploading hours of video related to something you despise? And picking at every part of the narrative hardly makes him clever. Any one of us could go into a GameStop, toss a dart while blindfolded, and tear to shreds the narrative of whatever game the dart happens to hit.

What he's doing is willfully dumping the suspension of disbelief that is pretty much required when reading (or playing) speculative fiction in order to make the points that he wants to make. He's trying to be Plinkett, but fails miserably. He roughly copies Plinkett's review structure, but isn't nearly as smart or clever, and has none of Plinkett's humour.  He's like a little boy dressing up in his daddy's clothes.

[SubAstris]

He brings up some valid points, as he does with most of his other ME videos. However, his main flaw is that he nitpicks intensely and describes the most minutest flaws (or perceived flaws, often they aren't problems but misunderstandings in his own mind) and presents them alongside big ones (such as the beam which I think is a horrible plot device). If he applied the same level of rigorous scrutiny to any other work of fiction, great or insignificant, it would fail to meet such rigorous demands. That's possibly because he puts too much emphasis on plot and not enough on characterisation and story. It seems to me he does this because that's what his fanbase want, he "plays to the crowd", if you will, focusing on tiny details in a way which doesn't take account of the whole game.

Not to mention his tone of voice can be very grating, although after struggling through some of his videos, I am getting used to it now; he always comes across incredibly arrogant IMO. Furthermore, his humour can fall flat at times

[Elite Midget]

STEEEEVE wrote...

Smudboy just blocked me from commenting on his videos for pointing out things he said that were clearly wrong. I'm anti-ending, but this guy is pathetic.

I believe you did more than just and try and prove him wrong. Others are still there voicing their opinion and aren't blocked despite disagreeing. From the way your sentence is worded I have a strong feeling that you had that block coming.

[SolidisusSnake1]

humes spork wrote...

Okay, when within ten minutes of starting a video you're already criticizing an in medias res opening for raising questions, already contradicting your own criticisms, and raising questions that are literally answered by the footage you're displaying as exemplary of the point you raise, you're anything but credible.

"What? I thought there was going to be a trial? Arrival meant nothing? And what's this courtroom doing here? And why is this defense council (who would probably be the ones overseeing if not presiding over high profile hearings and courts-martial, like what would happen if some prominent military member toreass around the galaxy flying terrorist colors and killed 300,000 batarians) here?"

"What? This defense council doesn't have any idea what's going on and they're asking anyone and everyone they can for information in hopes someone has an idea of what to do? And why is Ashley walking out of the courtroom they're in?"

"What happened to Mass Effect 2 (when Cerberus was investigating disappearing colonies because the Alliance wasn't competent or acknowledging the Reaper threat, and this was established, demonstrated and repeated thoroughly throughout the game)? Did those events mean nothing?"

"Shouldn't this distress beacon draw Reaper attention? Why aren't the Reapers doing anything about it? And where did all these Reaper forces come from en masse not thirty seconds after turning on the distress beacon and why are they here of all places?"

"Why doesn't Shepard have any idea what's going on? Why can't he strategize or come up with an idea for resisting the Reapers? Is he stupid? And why is Anderson staying behind on Earth to strategize and come up with an idea for resisting the Reapers? Is he stupid?"

I agree this guy is going WAY beyond nit picky, a lot of his points dont make any sense and are easily explained and not at all contradictions. I mean based on his criqitque there would be no story at all.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

Okay, when within ten minutes of starting a video you're already criticizing an in medias res opening for raising questions, already contradicting your own criticisms, and raising questions that are literally answered by the footage you're displaying as exemplary of the point you raise, you're anything but credible.

"What? I thought there was going to be a trial? Arrival meant nothing? And what's this courtroom doing here? And why is this defense council (who would probably be the ones overseeing if not presiding over high profile hearings and courts-martial, like what would happen if some prominent military member toreass around the galaxy flying terrorist colors and killed 300,000 batarians) here?"

"What? This defense council doesn't have any idea what's going on and they're asking anyone and everyone they can for information in hopes someone has an idea of what to do? And why is Ashley walking out of the courtroom they're in?"

"What happened to Mass Effect 2 (when Cerberus was investigating disappearing colonies because the Alliance wasn't competent or acknowledging the Reaper threat, and this was established, demonstrated and repeated thoroughly throughout the game)? Did those events mean nothing?"

"Shouldn't this distress beacon draw Reaper attention? Why aren't the Reapers doing anything about it? And where did all these Reaper forces come from en masse not thirty seconds after turning on the distress beacon and why are they here of all places?"

"Why doesn't Shepard have any idea what's going on? Why can't he strategize or come up with an idea for resisting the Reapers? Is he stupid? And why is Anderson staying behind on Earth to strategize and come up with an idea for resisting the Reapers? Is he stupid?"

I agree this guy is going WAY beyond nit picky, a lot of his points dont make any sense and are easily explained and not at all contradictions. I mean based on his criqitque there would be no story at all.

Yeah. Smudboy is extreeeeeeeeeeeemely nitpicky although smart on some points raised. Many of his questions can be answered with logic despite not being shown up by the writing or by just paying more attention lol.

Those first questions are really silly. If you read the codex and make 2 + 2, the intro segment is easily understandable and even clever I'd say. Way better than reapers doing a "surprise, backdoor sex" on the Alliance. Things worked way better and more believable than they were supposed to be first.

The defense council knows something massive is coming they just don't know what exactly. Anderson and Hackett expect the reapers but they're like the only ones who expect it to be that. Reapers still a myth y'know?

Arrival and ME3 state that the Alliance WAS doing something, they just weren't being as aggressive about it as Cerberus, didn't have much intel because of the activity being mostly on the Terminus and not nearly as successful (Vega fails). Ashley or Kaidan are there because they're high ranking officials probably called by Anderson on that last line of defense on Earth. Just as an observation: do we really need more than that?

Shepard didn't know what was going on because it was classified information and after he died he was never reintegrated into Alliance military after the Lazarus Project. And it's not that he couldn't come up with a strategy, he pointed out that the reapers weren't an enemy he or anyone at that point would just come up with a plan ready to defeat them, that they were outpowered by the enemy. It wasn't a battle they would just struggle until certain victory:

Councilor: Then, how do we stop them? - this line shows they're expecting a simple answer that will show them a clear path for victory or maybe negotiation.

Shepard's answer means to show that they're wrong in their assumption and it's a battle for survival. After all what do the reapers do every 50k years? The reapers would win within time and won't take prisioners.

And why Anderson stays? Wtf is with this question? Did he miss the part where Shepard was supposed to stay too?

That's why I can't take the guy much seriously sometimes.

[obtuse4ngle]

Yes, smudboy is nitpicky. Instead of 3 obvious questions, he asks an additional 7 that are irrelevant to the casual viewer, but that's his prerogative.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Those first questions are really silly. If you read the codex and make 2 + 2, the intro segment is easily understandable and even clever I'd say. Way better than reapers doing a "surprise, backdoor sex" on the Alliance. Things worked way better and more believable than they were supposed to be first.

Ok, please help me with the math here.

Playing through the game, the Reapers DID hit Arcturus Station anyway, so they did "surprise, backdoor sex" on the Alliance; that's why Hackett is unavailable during the defense committee hearing.

The point you ignore that has been previously mentioned in this thread is why Shepard or Anderson or the defense committee is on Earth. The Alliance has no authority on Earth.

Also, which of the powerful nations on Earth would claim responsibility for the guy/girl who just blew up an entire star system? A guy/girl who has a 2/3 chance of not even being Earth-born? Let's say the United North American States claim responsibilty for Shepard and offer to shelter him/her while the Alliance dallies. Why?

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
The defense council knows something massive is coming they just don't know what exactly. Anderson and Hackett expect the reapers but they're like the only ones who expect it to be that. Reapers still a myth y'know?

Arrival and ME3 state that the Alliance WAS doing something, they just weren't being as aggressive about it as Cerberus, didn't have much intel because of the activity being mostly on the Terminus and not nearly as successful (Vega fails).

Ok. No argument here.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Ashley or Kaidan are there because they're high ranking officials probably called by Anderson on that last line of defense on Earth.

It's 2186. You mean A/K still can't phone in their answers like Saren did in ME1? This doesn't detract from the story for me as much as the fact that nobody should be in Vancouver in the first place.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Just as an observation: do we really need more than that?

Yes, please.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Shepard didn't know what was going on because it was classified information and after he died he was never reintegrated into Alliance military after the Lazarus Project. And it's not that he couldn't come up with a strategy, he pointed out that the reapers weren't an enemy he or anyone at that point would just come up with a plan ready to defeat them, that they were outpowered by the enemy. It wasn't a battle they would just struggle until certain victory:

Why is s/he still in Alliance custody? If s/he was (dis)honorably discharged, they should've let him/her go. If s/he was facing trial, s/he should have a trial date. If s/he was going to be drilled about the Reapers, they should've done that 6 months ago. I'm not saying that lots of people don't get held up in limbo by bureaucracy, but 6 months is way too long for Shepard to be sitting around and waiting to be processed in a future where they have speeds way faster than FTL. A day or two, maybe a week, at most.

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Councilor: Then, how do we stop them? - this line shows they're expecting a simple answer that will show them a clear path for victory or maybe negotiation.

Shepard's answer means to show that they're wrong in their assumption and it's a battle for survival. After all what do the reapers do every 50k years? The reapers would win within time and won't take prisioners.

Still, why didn't they ask Shepard this months ago? Why keep him cooped up in Vancouver of all places?

Shepard's responses make no sense if Shepard is responding on the assumption that no matter what anybody does, everybody's doomed because the Reapers are already here.

• Shepard says "We fight or we die." Shouldn't s/he say "we fight AND we die" or "we go down fighting" then?
• Shepard says "Each of us must be willing to die to save humanity." Shouldn't s/he say "Each of us must be willing to die to protect humanity from being turned into Reapers" instead?

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
And why Anderson stays? Wtf is with this question? Did he miss the part where Shepard was supposed to stay too?

Shepard, who has seen the first hand effects on indoctrination on other people multiple times, volunteers to stay in the vicinity of several Reapers. Anderson, who knows that the Alliance has no definite method for dealing with the Reapers and knows of indoctrination, also volunteers to stay. How come neither of them cares about indoctrination or the fact that the Reapers can just nuke the planet?

This also comes back to our observation that indoctrination never seem to affect the designated "good guys" in this trilogy.

[azerSheppard]

Elite Midget wrote...

STEEEEVE wrote...

Smudboy just blocked me from commenting on his videos for pointing out things he said that were clearly wrong. I'm anti-ending, but this guy is pathetic.

I believe you did more than just and try and prove him wrong. Others are still there voicing their opinion and aren't blocked despite disagreeing. From the way your sentence is worded I have a strong feeling that you had that block coming.

LMAO no he IS pathetic, i said on a previous video that any work of fiction can be picked apart to make it sound like it was written by a novice. And guess what, he blocked me for that.

No counter argument, no nothing,that's pathetic by my books.

[Costin_Razvan]

Well that's his decision to block you when you were clearly trolling him.

[Sebby]

My only gripe with smudboy is that he can be very nitnicky on minor things while completely overlooking the worst contrivances such as Zaeed turning into a whimpering pup and submitting to Paragon Shepard's will in less than a minute after s/he ruined 20 years of his life and made him relive the traumatic experience that started the whole thing(having a gun shoved in his face while being held down).

Now when it comes to ME3 if anything he's far too soft on it. He doesn't mention issues such the Quarian admirals being turned into caricatures, the wonky characterizations of Mordin and Wrex or the "lol indoctrination" issue of railroading and cutting corners.

[obtuse4ngle]

Seboist wrote...

My only gripe with smudboy is that he can be very nitnicky on minor things while completely overlooking the worst contrivances such as Zaeed turning into a whimpering pup and submitting to Paragon Shepard's will in less than a minute after s/he ruined 20 years of his life and made him relive the traumatic experience that started the whole thing(having a gun shoved in his face while being held down).

Now when it comes to ME3 if anything he's far too soft on it. He doesn't mention issues such the Quarian admirals being turned into caricatures, the wonky characterizations of Mordin and Wrex or the "lol indoctrination" issue of railroading and cutting corners.

+5 for that Zaeed observation. I never thought about it like that.
+2 for the quarians. I used to like Han'Gerrel. *sadface*
+1 for the "lol indoctrination"

? for Mordin and Wrex. - I'm not sure what you mean about their characterizations. I thought they were the few that stayed faithful to previous games.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

obtuse4ngle wrote...

Ok, please help me with the math here.

Playing through the game, the Reapers DID hit Arcturus Station anyway, so they did "surprise, backdoor sex" on the Alliance; that's why Hackett is unavailable during the defense committee hearing.

The point you ignore that has been previously mentioned in this thread is why Shepard or Anderson or the defense committee is on Earth. The Alliance has no authority on Earth.

Also, which of the powerful nations on Earth would claim responsibility for the guy/girl who just blew up an entire star system? A guy/girl who has a 2/3 chance of not even being Earth-born? Let's say the United North American States claim responsibilty for Shepard and offer to shelter him/her while the Alliance dallies. Why?

As I've stated, it's simple. The Alliance deals with alien problems. They expected something massive on the way to Earth, so they mobilize Alliance military to defend Earth. Anderson and Shepard are there because they suspect of the reapers and are on the last line of defense. It's there they're wanted and want to be. Earth doesn't take responsibility for Shepard, the Alliance does.

Nothing had more priority in that moment than protecting Earth. It's still where most of mankind is located. Some of you have problems with that. I don't and don't understand why. It's obvious and I'm fine with that.

It's 2186. You mean A/K still can't phone in their answers like Saren did in ME1? This doesn't detract from the story for me as much as the fact that nobody should be in Vancouver in the first place.

I really don't understand what you mean here. The Alliance fleets were being mobilized to protect Earth. It's obvious A/K would be called as they (Hackett/Anderson) suspected of the reapers and they'd go there. Done.

Why is s/he still in Alliance custody? If s/he was (dis)honorably discharged, they should've let him/her go. If s/he was facing trial, s/he should have a trial date. If s/he was going to be drilled about the Reapers, they should've done that 6 months ago. I'm not saying that lots of people don't get held up in limbo by bureaucracy, but 6 months is way too long for Shepard to be sitting around and waiting to be processed in a future where they have speeds way faster than FTL. A day or two, maybe a week, at most.

Arrival. He wasn't discharged, he was in custody until the batarians backed off or something. As Hackett mentioned, just a formality. They (fortunatelly) changed the trial that was supposed to happen on Earth. Originally, EVERYONE thought that for some reason Shepard was going to be charged on Earth for Arrival, Cerberus and stuff. In the middle of the trial, reapers would attack there and get everyone by surprise with 0 preparation. Instead, he was held but reapers happened, batarians got pwned and he and everyone was moved to protect Earth.

Still, why didn't they ask Shepard this months ago? Why keep him cooped up in Vancouver of all places?

Shepard's responses make no sense if Shepard is responding on the assumption that no matter what anybody does, everybody's doomed because the Reapers are already here.

• Shepard says "We fight or we die." Shouldn't s/he say "we fight AND we die" or "we go down fighting" then?
• Shepard says "Each of us must be willing to die to save humanity." Shouldn't s/he say "Each of us must be willing to die to protect humanity from being turned into Reapers" instead?

1 - Because they weren't worried about the reapers he was held to maybe keep the batarians out.
2 - I don't remember and exact date when he's moved to Earth or how much time he got arrested by the Alliance. I assume he was moved when the batarians got attacked and the Alliance started to make preparations. Makes sense to me. Why Vancouver? I don't know, and I don't care. It's not relevant.
3 - No. That's not what Shepard means. Shepard wants to state that this is a very much more desperate situation than they want to believe. Again, it's not a struggle for victory, it's a fight for survival and they're not necessarilly doomed.

Shepard, who has seen the first hand effects on indoctrination on other people multiple times, volunteers to stay in the vicinity of several Reapers. Anderson, who knows that the Alliance has no definite method for dealing with the Reapers and knows of indoctrination, also volunteers to stay. How come neither of them cares about indoctrination or the fact that the Reapers can just nuke the planet?

This also comes back to our observation that indoctrination never seem to affect the designated "good guys" in this trilogy.

Indoctrination is for longe time exposure. For days, weeks, mothns, not minutes or hours. The reapers wanted to harvest humans and not just anihilate them. Some of you seemed obsessed with indoctrination. Seriously.

[obtuse4ngle]

(I haven't been on BSN in a while.)

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I really don't understand what you mean here. The Alliance fleets were being mobilized to protect Earth.  It's obvious A/K would be called as they (Hackett/Anderson) suspected of the reapers and they'd go there. Done.

Er ... A/K was in Vancouver for the defense committee hearing. S/He clearly says so.

For your long post, you still didn't address why people designated to protect Earth--1. from sentient spaceships (who fly around in SPACE) 2. and Earth's interest in space (with SPACE aliens)--would be on Earth anyways.

Yeah, the fleets are surrounding Earth, but what are Admirals and Commanders who are supposed to be leading the fleets doing ON Earth?

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Indoctrination is for longe time exposure. For days, weeks, mothns, not minutes or hours. The reapers wanted to harvest humans and not just anihilate them. Some of you seemed obsessed with indoctrination. Seriously.

Because Bioware is obsessed with indoctrination. Seriously.