215 réponses à ce sujet

[FFinfinity1]

RiouHotaru wrote...

While I'm impressed that folks continue this argument, it's obviously clear that TheAngryOne, and others, refuse to even entertain the idea that the outcome might be more optimistic, despite several claims BY THE WRITERS that the outcome is more hopeful than they conclude it to me, declaring such statements to be "damage control".

It's very clear that the "Galactic Bad End" camp doesn't want to acknowledge the possibility they could be wrong. And when the EC undoubtedly proves them wrong, they'll just handwave it away and scoff, claiming "damage control" and "retcon" and "plothole". It was the same song and dance as ME2.

When LotSB confirmed that the Shadow tried to send probes through the Omega-4 Relay and they were destroyed, Smudboy declared that to be damage control and a "shoddy fix" to a "plothole".

Most of the pro-Cerberus crowd, like Saphira and Kaiser Shepard, were firm in their belief that Cerberus had the right idea. Then ME3 revealed the Illusive Man was just stringing Shepard along. Surprisingly, even Cerberus' most staunch defenders went silent, but I'm sure they just eye-rolled the explanation away.

The fact is, you'll never get the opposing side to even consider the idea they could be incorrect, because despite the fact it's one of the founding principles of formulating a sound argument, they somehow believing acknowledging the opposition's argument weakens their position (in fact, the opposite is true, acknowledging that your argument has weak points is the sign of a GOOD argument)

I still don't see how the destruction of the relays could be a good thing, I mean its like the internet being destroyed all around the world, their would be chaos since it is part of this day and ages basic infrastructure.

The Relays made ME civilization possible.

[Bill Casey]

Taboo-XX wrote...

They aren't destroyed in Control.

The Catalyst says they are...
Are you calling the Catalyst a liar?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2012 - 07:20 .

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Citation please.  Prove that all this contamination actually exists, or that the Citadel is dropping on Earth.

Here's your citation: Use common bloody sense. Eezo contamination is well known, and the Citadel dropping is an inevitable consequence of it EXPLODING and breaking apart in low earth orbit.

Prove it.  You're making claims as though they were a matter of proven fact, you know that only makes you look more foolish.

Prove it? What does ANY group of people do if they're deprived of the things they need to LIVE?
If you're going to argue against me, make an actual point instead of demanding that I "prove" things that are inevitable.

RiouHotaru wrote...

When LotSB confirmed that the Shadow tried
to send probes through the Omega-4 Relay and they were destroyed,
Smudboy declared that to be damage control and a "shoddy fix" to a
"plothole".

Yeah you know why? Because it was.
Those probes returned. They returned in pieces, but they returned. Which raised even more plot holes.

Most of the pro-Cerberus crowd, like Saphira and
Kaiser Shepard, were firm in their belief that Cerberus had the right
idea. Then ME3 revealed the Illusive Man was just stringing Shepard
along. Surprisingly, even Cerberus' most staunch defenders went silent,
but I'm sure they just eye-rolled the explanation away.

Are you seriously, seriously using the fact that BioWare flanderized Cerberus into 100% villains as proof of anything?

The fact
is, you'll never get the opposing side to even consider the idea they
could be incorrect, because despite the fact it's one of the founding
principles of formulating a sound argument, they somehow believing
acknowledging the opposition's argument weakens their position (in fact,
the opposite is true, acknowledging that your argument has weak points
is the sign of a GOOD argument)

As opposed to you, where you have no argument, you mean?
You want to present something that will counter our case? Go right ahead. Don't sit there crying because you can't think of anything and we're being too mean to humour you.

Modifié par The Angry One, 03 juin 2012 - 07:24 .

[dorktainian]

did we really destroy the relays?

[eran5005]

TrulyInnovative wrote...

Doesn't the Charon relay being destroyed wipe out the whole Sol system anyway?

They never explained that bit, it seemed they left us to deduce on our own that the kid had some way to control the destructive force of a relay explosion...
Not the shiniest moment for story telling, but it is what it is...

[RiouHotaru]

FFinfinity1 wrote...

I still don't see how the destruction of the relays could be a good thing, I mean its like the internet being destroyed all around the world, their would be chaos since it is part of this day and ages basic infrastructure.

The Relays made ME civilization possible.

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

FFinfinity1 wrote...

I still don't see how the destruction of the relays could be a good thing, I mean its like the internet being destroyed all around the world, their would be chaos since it is part of this day and ages basic infrastructure.

The Relays made ME civilization possible.

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

Dishonest debate tactics 101: Let's assume the analogy to the internet is literal and work from there.

[General User]

Omanisat wrote...
Two. Over the course of 3 days. Both less then 15 kilotons. That's like saying driving a car into a wall at 100mph wouldn't kill you because doing it at 5 wouldn't. I've already said most estimates require at least 50 weapons detonated, with yields above 15kT. Individually they're city killers, collectively they're planet killers.

Estimates are fine as far as they go.  But when all observable and historical fact speaks against them it's time to set them aside.

Averdi wrote...
While I tend to agree with a certain
skepticism of a ME nuclear winter (though if large sections of the
citadel survive re-entry to make surface impact, it's a possibility), do
you think that those cities, or Europe for that matter, could have made
such a recovery without outside assistance?  If post-war Japan or
Germany were simply left like that, with nothing going in or out, you
don't think there would have been further massive destruction of those
populations and societies?

Not really, especially in Japan's case, where the Japanese government and military in the home islands was more or less intact right up till the very moment they surrendered to the Americans.

You can only take this analogy so far, especially in the case of Earth because at the end of ME3 1) the fighting has stopped, there is nothing left to do but rebuild, 2) Earth (and planets in other clusters) are NOT strictly isolated they can look to other worlds/colonies in the area to get the things they need to rebuild, and 3) in the case of Earth and many other planets, there are military forces in place to take charge of the whole affair.

The Angry One wrote...
Earth is dead. Half the planet is on
fire. It's going to suffer numerous mass accelerator misfires, it's
atmosphere will be clogged with debris, it's ground and water further
polluted by eezo core explosions and oh yeah, the Citadel dropping on it
as a bonus.

It will be completely uninhabitable, anybody staying there after the battle is going to die.

Balderdash!  Fires can be put out.  Debris can be cleared.  Groundwater can be purified.  The Earth is not fragile.  The Earth is not delicate.  Neither are human beings.  No one said it would be easy, but it's not the end of the world, let alone the galaxy.

The Angry One wrote...
What's that saying? All that stands between civilisation and anarchy is seven meals?
It
doesn't matter how disciplined they are. Survival will take precidence.
If the Turians are starving, and the Quarians have food they can't
share because they need to feed their own people, then the Turians are
going to take it by force. It's just that simple.

Ridiculous.  Among equals, cooperation is always preferable as a survival strategy.  The turians and quarians will cooperate for mutual benefit, not turn on each other like stray dogs.  Professional military forces, organized and disciplined, simply breaking down and turning to warlord-ism and banditry is a fantasy that belongs in second-rate fiction. 
...
...
oh... wait a minute...

[Jassu1979]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

The equivalent would be more like: all freight ships and modern airplanes are wiped out along with the internet, and the only way to cross the Atlantic or Pacific ocean is to travel several months per sailboat.

Oh, and this occurs at a time when every country around the world lies in ruins anyway, with billions dead and probably twice as many grievously injured.

I'm sure there'll be a happy future with puppies and rainbows. How could it not be? All we need to do is improve our sailing techniques! I'm sure we'll get there within a decade or so.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 03 juin 2012 - 07:46 .

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Apparently my concept of "a long hard road" is completely different from yours. A rebuilding time of mere years (as opposed to one of two centuries or even a millenium) would be so meaningless that they might as well not be destroyed in the first place. May I remind you that the energy of a supernova is bound up in a relay? You don't build stuff like that in mere years.
Also, I like the idea of the different scenarios developing different types of long-range FTL travel. I've outlined those in my thread Out of the dark age: relays, FTL and rebuilding galactic civilization.

My scenario would be beam goes out and destroys most relays but leaves a some damaged. Once these are pinpointed and studied in order to be repaired a very basic network will exist in years. There will still be lots of FTL travel to get from these points to anywhere else and many complete black zones with no relays. Relays are studied and resources gathered and attempts to replicate relays will be made over a longer term to provide a more extensive network.

[ThomaswBloom]

Oldbones2 wrote...

Plenty of people who know about logistics and the complexity of supply in modern society understand how devastating this will be for the galaxy.

Others....do not.

*shrug*  Okay.  Fun little intellectual exercise.



Pre-invaion population is in "Trillions" per ME1.  So at least two Trillion people. 

Lets say 50% of the galactic population is wholly dependent on imported food.  Pure speculation there.

So you've got roughly 3 trillion meals per day being unloaded at
spaceports around the galaxy.  Call it a pound and half per meal?  So
4.5 trillion pounds of food per day being unloaded. 

To move 4.5 trillion lbs per day would require how many freighters?  ME freighters
don't look all that big to me.  I'd say they were smaller than modern
container ships.  So 50 million lbs per Freighter optimistically.  
Given those estimates you're looking at 90,000 freighters per day being
unloaded. 

Now you've got to have all this pipelined because the round trip is going to be more than one day. 
Load the freighter, lift, travel to Mass relay, travel to destination,
discharge, unload and refuel, lift, travel to mass relay, travel to food planet,
discharge, load and refuel, repeat ad nausium.  So best case estimate two days round
trip.

So you're looking at around 180k frighteners to
support  50% of the galaxy given the minimum pre-invasion population and
presuming that ME freighters are as large as
the biggest container ships we have.  And that the entire galactic
population is within one day of a mass relay, counting discharge and unloading time.

The largest fleet in the galaxy is the quarians at 50k ships.  There is
nothing in the game to indicate a merchant marine fleet 4 times the size
of the largest fleet in the game.

For every day the average round trip would actually be you need another two quarian fleets worth of freighters.  For every additional trillion population you add another Quarian fleet worth of Freighters.  If the ME freighters are not as large as the largest of modern container ships the requirment increases.  If you want to presume 90% of the galaxy lives wholly on imported food you're not quite doubling these numbers.

Add to this no planet is going to use a perfectly even amount of freighters, they'll be partial loads and such needed for each colony.  (more ships needed).  No fleet of ships is going to have 100% uptime (more ships needed).   And if you're running the bare minimum number of ships this means 50% of the peace time galaxy is one day away from begining to starve.

ME freighters are not depicted as stuffed to the brim with Strawberries, Hot Pockets, and Nutrient paste, they're mostly carring people and high value manufactured items.  There is no evidence in game of the hundreds of thousands of freighters needed for this kind of logistics.  There is no evidence in game of the entire galaxy teetering on the edge of starvation either.

Personally it looks like to me that most planets/colonies/clusters are 90%+ self sufficiant.  With many being totally self sufficiant at least as far as food production goes.

Your speculation may vary.

*edit*  shakes fist at fourm formating..

Modifié par ThomaswBloom, 03 juin 2012 - 07:47 .

[Ieldra]

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Apparently my concept of "a long hard road" is completely different from yours. A rebuilding time of mere years (as opposed to one of two centuries or even a millenium) would be so meaningless that they might as well not be destroyed in the first place. May I remind you that the energy of a supernova is bound up in a relay? You don't build stuff like that in mere years.
Also, I like the idea of the different scenarios developing different types of long-range FTL travel. I've outlined those in my thread Out of the dark age: relays, FTL and rebuilding galactic civilization.

My scenario would be beam goes out and destroys most relays but leaves a some damaged. Once these are pinpointed and studied in order to be repaired a very basic network will exist in years. There will still be lots of FTL travel to get from these points to anywhere else and many complete black zones with no relays. Relays are studied and resources gathered and attempts to replicate relays will be made over a longer term to provide a more extensive network.

Ah, I see. That's a more plausible scenario. Thanks for explaining. That would be a good "clarification" the EC could provide.

Except that I would leave the rebuild phase to the players' imagination to allow for the possibility of alternative methods of long-range FTL:

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 juin 2012 - 07:51 .

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

Here's your citation: Use common bloody sense. Eezo contamination is well known, and the Citadel dropping is an inevitable consequence of it EXPLODING and breaking apart in low earth orbit.

We don't know where in Earth's orbit the Citadel is exactly, and going based on the cutscene doesn't tell us anything.  You're making a huge assumption.  Same with the Eezo contamination.  The fleet wasn't fighting in low earth orbit.  You might wind up with a layer of Eezo in space around the earth, but I saw nothing to indicate Eezo contamination in Earth's atmosphere

Prove it? What does ANY group of people do if they're deprived of the things they need to LIVE?
If you're going to argue against me, make an actual point instead of demanding that I "prove" things that are inevitable.

Inevitable?  But they aren't.  There's absolutely no evidence that resources are so limited that anarchy and in-fighting will break out.  Again, you make a large number of assumptions based on non-existant evidence, and then claim it to be patently true simply because...well, I don't know WHY you claim it to be patently true.

It wasn't flanderization.  It was a confirmation of what most people already knew: That Cerberus was a bunch of scheming bad guys who could not be trusted.  And I'm using this as an example to make a point, which your reaction proved.  Bioware explained in a concise manner why things happened a certain way, but you call it "flanderization" because it didn't conform to your belief.

As opposed to you, where you have no argument, you mean?
You want to present something that will counter our case? Go right ahead. Don't sit there crying because you can't think of anything and we're being too mean to humour you. 

The argument is what this thread is for.  That destroying the relays isn't nearly as devestating to galactic civilization as you think it is.  It's utterly baffling to me why you, among others, fixate on this idea that civilization post-ME3 is doomed to misery despite evidence by Weekes himself to the contrary.

Your argument is based on what you think would happen in such a situation.  You're making assumptions about the outcome without any evidence to back it up, using nothing more than "But this is what would OBVIOUSLY happen!" as your argument, which isn't even an argument at all.  Your argument ("EVERYONE IS DOOMED!") is as much based in supposition and conjecture as mine is ("No, they're not."), a fact you refuse to acknowledge.

And I know exactly what will happen when the EC comes out and proves you wrong, you'll just scoff and go "Damage control!  Shoddy writing because it ignores what I think is the obvious outcome!"

[Averdi]

RiouHotaru wrote...

While I'm impressed that folks continue this argument, it's obviously clear that TheAngryOne, and others, refuse to even entertain the idea that the outcome might be more optimistic, despite several claims BY THE WRITERS that the outcome is more hopeful than they conclude it to me, declaring such statements to be "damage control".

It's very clear that the "Galactic Bad End" camp doesn't want to acknowledge the possibility they could be wrong. And when the EC undoubtedly proves them wrong, they'll just handwave it away and scoff, claiming "damage control" and "retcon" and "plothole". It was the same song and dance as ME2.

When LotSB confirmed that the Shadow tried to send probes through the Omega-4 Relay and they were destroyed, Smudboy declared that to be damage control and a "shoddy fix" to a "plothole".

Most of the pro-Cerberus crowd, like Saphira and Kaiser Shepard, were firm in their belief that Cerberus had the right idea. Then ME3 revealed the Illusive Man was just stringing Shepard along. Surprisingly, even Cerberus' most staunch defenders went silent, but I'm sure they just eye-rolled the explanation away.

The fact is, you'll never get the opposing side to even consider the idea they could be incorrect, because despite the fact it's one of the founding principles of formulating a sound argument, they somehow believing acknowledging the opposition's argument weakens their position (in fact, the opposite is true, acknowledging that your argument has weak points is the sign of a GOOD argument)

I'd label myself in the galactic bad end camp, and I'm open to arguments as to why things aren't as dire as I suspect.  I reserve the right to critique and debate those arguements, however, as I'd expect others to critique and debate mine.  While I don't know how much of your post would apply to me, the simple fact that someone hasn't switched or compromised on their opinion isn't evidence that it's based simply upon emotion or flies in the face of logic.

I don't know what comments the writers have specifically made about how the ending isn't so bad, but their role as authors of the story does not, in my opinion, provide them with the authority to clarify or adjust the ending in a manner contrary to the logic of the story and universe as presented up to that point.

The ending, as currently presented, sets up circumstances that, to me, indicate the most likely logical path the galaxy might take post-ME3, and that path is a dark one.  There are plenty of things we don't know for certain, but for clarity in those unknowns to adjust the story towards a galaxy without mass starvation, societal collapse, technological regression, and a general breakdown of civalization seems, to me, to require greater suspension of disbelieve than were those things to occur.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

FFinfinity1 wrote...

I still don't see how the destruction of the relays could be a good thing, I mean its like the internet being destroyed all around the world, their would be chaos since it is part of this day and ages basic infrastructure.

The Relays made ME civilization possible.

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

Dishonest debate tactics 101: Let's assume the analogy to the internet is literal and work from there.

How else WAS I supposed to take the analogy?  If the analogy didn't work then it's not me being dishonest, it's the other guy using a bad analogy.

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Apparently my concept of "a long hard road" is completely different from yours. A rebuilding time of mere years (as opposed to one of two centuries or even a millenium) would be so meaningless that they might as well not be destroyed in the first place. May I remind you that the energy of a supernova is bound up in a relay? You don't build stuff like that in mere years.
Also, I like the idea of the different scenarios developing different types of long-range FTL travel. I've outlined those in my thread Out of the dark age: relays, FTL and rebuilding galactic civilization.

My scenario would be beam goes out and destroys most relays but leaves a some damaged. Once these are pinpointed and studied in order to be repaired a very basic network will exist in years. There will still be lots of FTL travel to get from these points to anywhere else and many complete black zones with no relays. Relays are studied and resources gathered and attempts to replicate relays will be made over a longer term to provide a more extensive network.

Ah, I see. That's a more plausible scenario. Thanks for explaining. That would be a good "clarification" the EC could provide.

Except that I would leave the rebuild phase to the players' imagination to allow for the possibility of alternative methods of long-range FTL:

Yeah i agree really long term future can be left up to players imagination as to how things pan out. They've just got to set players feet on the path so to speak in each different ending rather than going 'have fun with your 10,000 year' galactic dark age.

[RiouHotaru]

Jassu1979 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

The equivalent would be more like: all freight ships and modern airplanes are wiped out along with the internet, and the only way to cross the Atlantic or Pacific ocean is to travel several months per sailboat.

Oh, and this occurs at a time when every country around the world lies in ruins anyway, with billions dead and probably twice as many grievously injured.

I'm sure there'll be a happy future with puppies and rainbows. How could it not be? All we need to do is improve our sailing techniques! I'm sure we'll get there within a decade or so.

And now you're strawmanning my argument.  At NO point did I argue "puppies and rainbows".  Not even once.  Why is it people think that if you disagree with a "bad end" you must then arguing the opposite extreme?  Even Iedra's thread doesn't argue sunshine and lollipops.  It argues for a Hope Spot and eventual recovery.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...


We don't know where in Earth's orbit the Citadel is exactly, and going based on the cutscene doesn't tell us anything.

Yes it does, it shows us the position of the Citadel relative to Earth.

You're making a huge assumption.  Same with the Eezo contamination.  The fleet wasn't fighting in low earth orbit.  You might wind up with a layer of Eezo in space around the earth, but I saw nothing to indicate Eezo contamination in Earth's atmosphere

Good freaking god. Where do you think that debris and contamination is going?

Inevitable?  But they aren't.  There's absolutely no evidence that resources are so limited that anarchy and in-fighting will break out.  Again, you make a large number of assumptions based on non-existant evidence, and then claim it to be patently true simply because...well, I don't know WHY you claim it to be patently true.

You see, I'm doing the one thing Mac Walters doesn't want me to do. I'm thinking.
The fleet is not going to be carrying supplies for a long term stay. The Turians and Quarians specifically need different food than the rest of us, and Earth is uninhabitable anyway.
There simply is not going to be enough food to go around. People will starve, and when people starve, desperate measures are taken.

It wasn't flanderization.  It was a confirmation of what most people already knew: That Cerberus was a bunch of scheming bad guys who could not be trusted.  And I'm using this as an example to make a point, which your reaction proved.  Bioware explained in a concise manner why things happened a certain way, but you call it "flanderization" because it didn't conform to your belief.

Rubbish. Cerberus were certainly not saints in ME2, but there were morally grey allies at worst.
Turning them into supervillains was entirely an ME3 thing.

The argument is what this thread is for.  That destroying the relays isn't nearly as devestating to galactic civilization as you think it is.  It's utterly baffling to me why you, among others, fixate on this idea that civilization post-ME3 is doomed to misery despite evidence by Weekes himself to the contrary.

Weekes also said that the speed of Citadel ships was never stated in game. It is. In the codex.
Weekes may be a good writer, but he's also not familiar with all the lore, especially the lore of an ending he didn't write.

Who did write it? Mac Walters. What did *he* say about it? Galactic dark age.

Your argument is based on what you think would happen in such a situation.  You're making assumptions about the outcome without any evidence to back it up, using nothing more than "But this is what would OBVIOUSLY happen!" as your argument, which isn't even an argument at all.  Your argument ("EVERYONE IS DOOMED!") is as much based in supposition and conjecture as mine is ("No, they're not."), a fact you refuse to acknowledge.

My argument is common sense. You're just whining because it's depressing.
Well, yeah. Sorry, we're not here to uplift you. If you want to wear rose tinted glasses and assume everything will be fine, go ahead. Don't complain when the rest of us are more realistic.

And I know exactly what will happen when the EC comes out and proves you wrong, you'll just scoff and go "Damage control!  Shoddy writing because it ignores what I think is the obvious outcome!"

I love this "Omg the EC will vindicate everything I say!" nonsense.
Sure, they can try and handwave things away with more space magic, but as it stands now, with this ending, our interpretation is the realistic one. The end.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

How else WAS I supposed to take the analogy?  If the analogy didn't work then it's not me being dishonest, it's the other guy using a bad analogy.

Then say it's a bad analogy.

[Averdi]

General User wrote...

Not really, especially in Japan's case, where the Japanese government and military in the home islands was more or less intact right up till the very moment they surrendered to the Americans.

You can only take this analogy so far, especially in the case of Earth because at the end of ME3 1) the fighting has stopped, there is nothing left to do but rebuild, 2) Earth (and planets in other clusters) are NOT strictly isolated they can look to other worlds/colonies in the area to get the things they need to rebuild, and 3) in the case of Earth and many other planets, there are military forces in place to take charge of the whole affair.

What do you think the implications of (1) are?  The German poplulation got pulled into the subsequent Cold War, sure, but even there their focus (and the Allies focus) was primarily rebuilding the West first (so they would be stronger allies agains the USSR).  The Japanese were even more focused on rebuilding.  In neither case was their attention dramatically diverted from rebuilding.

2) Sure, they can.  I doubt that any assistance from those areas would be expiditious, however, and it would definitely be limited just in terms of travel cost/time.

3) On other planets (Palaven), that might be a good thing.  On Earth I think it's at best a crapshoot whether having multi-species militaries around is good for maintaining order versus having an organized group ready to fight you for scarce resources.

[Jassu1979]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Jassu1979 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

No they didn't.  They made galactic civilization EASIER to form.  We could exist without the internet.  Information would be harder to disemenate and share, but it wouldn't mean the end of modern civilization.

The equivalent would be more like: all freight ships and modern airplanes are wiped out along with the internet, and the only way to cross the Atlantic or Pacific ocean is to travel several months per sailboat.

Oh, and this occurs at a time when every country around the world lies in ruins anyway, with billions dead and probably twice as many grievously injured.

I'm sure there'll be a happy future with puppies and rainbows. How could it not be? All we need to do is improve our sailing techniques! I'm sure we'll get there within a decade or so.

And now you're strawmanning my argument.  At NO point did I argue "puppies and rainbows".  Not even once.  Why is it people think that if you disagree with a "bad end" you must then arguing the opposite extreme?  Even Iedra's thread doesn't argue sunshine and lollipops.  It argues for a Hope Spot and eventual recovery.

Address the argument, please.

Just how much hope would we have if our countries were bombed to smithereens, and the war ended with sailboats as the only means of crossing the ocean and communicating with the other countries around the world?  That WOULD mean the end of modern civilization.

Modifié par Jassu1979, 03 juin 2012 - 08:05 .

[RiouHotaru]

Averdi wrote...

I'd label myself in the galactic bad end camp, and I'm open to arguments as to why things aren't as dire as I suspect.  I reserve the right to critique and debate those arguements, however, as I'd expect others to critique and debate mine.  While I don't know how much of your post would apply to me, the simple fact that someone hasn't switched or compromised on their opinion isn't evidence that it's based simply upon emotion or flies in the face of logic.

I don't know what comments the writers have specifically made about how the ending isn't so bad, but their role as authors of the story does not, in my opinion, provide them with the authority to clarify or adjust the ending in a manner contrary to the logic of the story and universe as presented up to that point.

The ending, as currently presented, sets up circumstances that, to me, indicate the most likely logical path the galaxy might take post-ME3, and that path is a dark one.  There are plenty of things we don't know for certain, but for clarity in those unknowns to adjust the story towards a galaxy without mass starvation, societal collapse, technological regression, and a general breakdown of civalization seems, to me, to require greater suspension of disbelieve than were those things to occur.

Most of my post, in fact almost ALL of it, doesn't apply to you.

As for the writers, Weekes stated two points:

- The confirmed FTL speed of 12 ly/day is the CRUISING speed for frigates, larger ships move faster by default, and higher speeds are possible otherwise.  The fact that he mentions conventional FTL as an option means the issue of fuel can be solved.

- Salvaging parts from Reapers helps develop technology.  This means that despite the devestation enough infrastructure exists to not only salvage parts and pieces from the destroyed Reapers, but also to integrate it or reverse engineer it to work with existing technology.

As for the ending isse, I'd argue that the level of suspension of disbelief is the same for both sides.  After all, we're only presented with the IMMEDIATE consequence of the war, with absolutely nothing that points to the long-term consquences.

- We know in two endings, the Citadel is destroyed.  Do we know if the destruction was enough to shove it into low orbit and send it crashing to Earth?  No.  Absolutely no evidence exists to back this claim up.  Neither is the cutscene evidence either.

- We know the Allied fleet sustains heavy losses.  Do we know that that there's going to be Eezo contamination based on those losses?  No.  Do we know that the Quarians lose enough lifeships to render themselves unable to sustain their population?  No.

- We know Earth is wrecked quite heavily.  Do we know that Earth is rendered permanently uninhabitable?  No.  Do we know that enough infrastructure has been destroyed to guarantee Earth will not support the life that survives on it?  No.


That's my argument.  We lack ANY evidence whatsoever that things turn out as badly as people seem to love claiming.  Now, in reverse, there's no evidence that things eventually get better either.  But to argue that it's more difficult to believe an eventual "bad end" over an eventual "good end" seems silly when the evidence to support either claim patently does NOT exist.

[TrulyInnovative]

RiouHotaru wrote...

As for the writers, Weekes stated two points:

Like Averdi, I don't really consider what the writers say outside of the game to be a part of canon. At best, they're an indication on what can be included in the new DLC.

[Jassu1979]

RiouHotaru wrote...

- The confirmed FTL speed of 12 ly/day is the CRUISING speed for frigates, larger ships move faster by default, and higher speeds are possible otherwise.  The fact that he mentions conventional FTL as an option means the issue of fuel can be solved.

"Those sailboats are really fast! Clearly, they'll fill the gap and solve all of our problems."

- Salvaging parts from Reapers helps develop technology.  This means that despite the devestation enough infrastructure exists to not only salvage parts and pieces from the destroyed Reapers, but also to integrate it or reverse engineer it to work with existing technology.

Salvaging Reapers has worked really well in the past. Leviathan of Dis and the Reaper corpse in ME2, anyone?

As for the ending isse, I'd argue that the level of suspension of disbelief is the same for both sides.  After all, we're only presented with the IMMEDIATE consequence of the war, with absolutely nothing that points to the long-term consquences.

I'm not talking about long-term consequences. I'm talking about what's going to happen right after the relays are destroyed, all across the galaxy.

- We know in two endings, the Citadel is destroyed.  Do we know if the destruction was enough to shove it into low orbit and send it crashing to Earth?  No.  Absolutely no evidence exists to back this claim up.  Neither is the cutscene evidence either.

The Citadel already IS in low orbit in those cut scenes.

- We know the Allied fleet sustains heavy losses.  Do we know that that there's going to be Eezo contamination based on those losses?  No.  Do we know that the Quarians lose enough lifeships to render themselves unable to sustain their population?  No.

Now it's getting downright silly.

[General User]

Averdi wrote...
What do you think the implications of (1) are?  The German poplulation
got pulled into the subsequent Cold War, sure, but even there their
focus (and the Allies focus) was primarily rebuilding the West first (so
they would be stronger allies agains the USSR).  The Japanese were even
more focused on rebuilding.  In neither case was their attention
dramatically diverted from rebuilding.

Tell 'ya what.  if you really want to talk about WWII, hit me up with a PM.

Averdi wrote...
2) Sure, they can.  I doubt that any assistance from those areas would be expiditious, however, and it would definitely be limited just in terms of travel cost/time.

I was refering more to the fact that there are several resource rich worlds (including at least one garden world) within short distance of Earth that any "relief administration" would be more than able to exploit at will.

Averdi wrote...
3) On other planets (Palaven), that might be a good thing.  On Earth I think it's at best a crapshoot whether having multi-species militaries around is good for maintaining order versus having an organized group ready to fight you for scarce resources.

It's a concern, no doubt about that.  And, armchair admiral that I am, one of the first things I'd do after the battle is put Aria's mercenary forces on lock.  But as far as the Alliance, Hierarchy, asari, salarian, quarian, geth, even remnant batarian and (under Wrex at least) krogan forces, I have no doubt that continued mutual cooperation remains the best strategy for us all and that they will recognize that as well.