270 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

eddieoctane wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The problem with you point is that those people in your example face experiances the were with in their means of stratagy and tech to handle. They never had to face an unstoppable force. There has not been one battle since WW2 that acarrier was ever engaged in heavy combat. Most commanders on ships handle a support role to the units that go in for the attack.
The same can be said for the allince fleets the support earth defence. Normal a ship commander fight conventional war on there ships. They don't normal do unconventional.
Ifthe us navy suddenly had an unstoppable force attack it, ofcourse the officers would not know what to dobecause there normal tactics would not work.

My point was that practical and relevant combat experience is required for command. You missed that. Or you chose to ignore it deliberately. Either way, the poitn still stands that admirals and generals aren't paper pushers. They know how to keep a level head. The ones in ME3 all but broke down and cried like little girls. And this was only done to elevate Shepard, because Mac can't write more than one character in a room to have any competency whatsoever.

During the First Contact War, humanity was hopelessly outmatched by the Turians. It was the intervention of the Council that prevented humanity from being massacred. So humans in the ME-era have at least some experience in dealing with an overwhelming force. It stands to reason that some of the officers from that conflict would still be around (Dr. Chakwas, for example), who could provide some insight on what to do more than "We fight or we die". Bad writing is bad.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that if the statements about actual Tier One operators acting in an advisory role in the production of Medal of Honor hold true, then EA could have provided some actual military advisers to the development team of ME2 and 3. BioWare did not want this, and we got derps everywhere as a result. Instead of having any measure of logic in things like rank structure, tactics, or operations, Mac and Casey art'ed their way through, and the consumers were disappointed.

Your missing the fact the unpractical 
combat experience  is a caseof"unstoppable force cutting through all defences" is not on the normally happens.
 Unpractical  combat experience reflext to knowing how to fight an enemy the fight indirectly. You missing the fact that these of people use to having a wall of ship as a base of their tatics. If they loos the base of tactic, there not going to know what to do next.
Would the US know what to do if they faced an enemy that cut through all their military defences?

Also, don't use the fist contact war, that last for a second and it wasonly one admeral that had any heavy unconvetional combat in that war. The rest just massed in numbers and over whilmed the turians. That's not an unconventional any were near the likes ofth reapers.

[ld1449]

dreman9999 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

And yes, I remember how long it took to bring down the gunship but if you'll recall, I did bring it down. There is no reason my two squadmates can't fight Kai Leng while Shepard deals with that.

Furthermore lets look at the teammates themselves.

Garrus, disabled the gunship in ME2 with one shot before we got there.

Liara, extremely powerful Biotic that can rip an engine wing off or block the bullets/missiles with a barrier.

Javik, also a very powerful Biotic with a particle beam that could probably melt through that hull.

Tali and Edi should both be able to hack that thing in their sleep,

The only two teammates who can't bring it down or distract it is Vega and Ashley and again, no reason they can't fight the Naruto cosplayer while I deal with the ship.

Kia lang is a person which has a super strong sheild and clockes him self. He is not going to be destarcted fro what Shepard is doing added , he did not allow the gun ship to be in view tobe shot at when he was attacking.

"Garrus, disabled the gunship in ME2 with one shot before we got there."
Cerberus knows that, you don't think they would have a counter for that?

"Liara, extremely powerful Biotic that can rip an engine wing off or block the bullets/missiles with a barrier. "
No she can't. When has she ever done this?

"Javik, also a very powerful Biotic with a particle beam that could probably melt through that hull. "
No it can't. The gun can't even on shot an Atlus.

"Tali and Edi should both be able to hack that thing in their sleep,  "
Cerbeus knows this you don't think they won't have a counter?

Right. They thought of everything and Mac's writing is simply flawless. Give me a break.

I think I'm done here. Probably have more luck talking to a brick.

[dreman9999]

ld1449 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

@ld1449 


How do you not understand that you looking at a commitee that is used and statagies based on a conventional means of battle. They aret their thinking is of  being big fish and using big fish tactics. They are used to using force to stop force with an invation with smaller units attack and braking apart the attack force. They are used to and make all ther tactic based on having a wall of  ships stopping advancement of any invation.

If a force comes in and cut through those forces they have like nothing, you think any commander would know what to do to counter it. No planning whould stop the reaper. None. They paniced because they had no tatic to stop the reapers  like the rest of the races.

If you have a set of tactic on had younormaly used and your opponet cut through all of them you not suppenly going to know what to do next.
What plan can they do to counter the reapers?

....yeah...

That's not tactics buddy that's brute force stupidity...

Like I said. I'm not expecting them to stop the reapers. They could make an effort though. I could see them looking over reports scrambling to gather up whatever ground assets they have, nuclear missle silos, ground to orbit weaponry organising civilian evacuation, logistics on food, resources, gathering the intelligence on enemy numbers, weaponry capabilities calling in any fleet available that was not stationed at arcturus.

When will you understand that the portrayal they're given is simply idiotic. No military commander just sits there and flounders when the plan goes to hell. Plans go to hell all the time, that's why they're commanders because they come up with new plans.

Did the Turians panic? **** no. Turians lost bad, then they pulled a Han Solo in "never tell me the odds" pulled a bull**** FTL jump to literally land right in the middle of the reaper formation, blew up three of their soverign classes and jumped back out. THAT is tactics and TURIANS are the ones that use overwhelming force since, pound for pound they have the largest, most powerful fleet in the galaxy.

Did the Asari Panic? No. They kept using hit and run tactics, bringing down one to two reaper vessels before jumping away again, their campaign was successful until the reapers reached thessia. Then they tried to dig in their heels.

THOSE are tactics. All from people which, by your logic should have panicked even more than the humans considering they both had bigger fleets.

That is tactics. That a tactic the  used the smaller forces to do key victories and attacks and have the larger forces provied defence, key strickes and support.
That what the US main tactic are at this time.

It understand able for a force that has a statagy like this to panic when it dose not work.


And the turian did painc as well. They just kept fight anyway. Every turian in the hiechy was once a part of the miltary. They breed to fight. Their tactic were working eather and they are just a despreathas humanity.And that tactic you pointed out the turians did lasted second before being countered. The reaper quick over whemelded them with force after that and they lost way more then they gained.
And the asari....:lol:The panic more than the humans. The asari goverment did even know how to start with this war and that lost them Thessia in the end.

[dreman9999]

ld1449 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ld1449 wrote...

And yes, I remember how long it took to bring down the gunship but if you'll recall, I did bring it down. There is no reason my two squadmates can't fight Kai Leng while Shepard deals with that.

Furthermore lets look at the teammates themselves.

Garrus, disabled the gunship in ME2 with one shot before we got there.

Liara, extremely powerful Biotic that can rip an engine wing off or block the bullets/missiles with a barrier.

Javik, also a very powerful Biotic with a particle beam that could probably melt through that hull.

Tali and Edi should both be able to hack that thing in their sleep,

The only two teammates who can't bring it down or distract it is Vega and Ashley and again, no reason they can't fight the Naruto cosplayer while I deal with the ship.

Kia lang is a person which has a super strong sheild and clockes him self. He is not going to be destarcted fro what Shepard is doing added , he did not allow the gun ship to be in view tobe shot at when he was attacking.

"Garrus, disabled the gunship in ME2 with one shot before we got there."
Cerberus knows that, you don't think they would have a counter for that?

"Liara, extremely powerful Biotic that can rip an engine wing off or block the bullets/missiles with a barrier. "
No she can't. When has she ever done this?

"Javik, also a very powerful Biotic with a particle beam that could probably melt through that hull. "
No it can't. The gun can't even on shot an Atlus.

"Tali and Edi should both be able to hack that thing in their sleep,  "
Cerbeus knows this you don't think they won't have a counter?

Right. They thought of everything and Mac's writing is simply flawless. Give me a break.

I think I'm done here. Probably have more luck talking to a brick.

AKA, YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO COUNTER MY POINTS.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Oh brother, counter your headcanon you mean, "Cerberus thinks of everything, they don't make mistakes blah blah blah"

[Baa Baa]

dreman9999 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

I will never understand people who can look at the ending and the EC and honestly believe it's good.

would you have preferred an 'Independence Day' ending?

I was thinking more along the lines of "The Dark Knight Rises"

Ah that's funny you say that. Because the breathe scene is essentially the same exact thing as tge ending scene in TDKR.....only difference is that you see his face.

What's wrong? You wanted Shepard to be sitting in a Cafe with your L.I.? Is that it? Lol

Besides, critically, TDKR was Christopher Nolans worst movie he's ever done(granted, most of his movies are amazing, so the bar is set quite high). It was a fitting conclusion to the trilogy, but hardly better than mediocre overall. And the ending? What a cliched 'happy-go-lucky' conclusion. I'm sure you wouldve hated it had that Disney scene not been thrown in right before the credits.

Thanks for letting me know your point of view though. I completely understand your perspective on things now.....

No, the Legacy part of the ending is what I'm talking about, not the happy "rainbows" ending. I'm the kind of person who generally prefers depressing endings like Requiem for a Dream, The Elephant Man, or The Mist (some of my favorite movie endings), and I wouldn't have even had a problem with Shepard dying at the end of every ending, just as long as his death meant something. Shepard's death doesn't have any meaning though. You betray your allies then you're regarded as a hero, that is not the kind of thing a heroic character does.
And I would have actually been fine with Bruce dying at the end of the movie and Blake going into the cave. Either way I would have found the end extremely powerful.
So no, the problem for me is not the "it wasn't happy enough," the problem is that you feel as if you've become the antagonist of the story. Which could of course work in a single game, but not in a trilogy where you have to work for a hundred hours to reach the conclusion.
And that's hilarious that you think TDKR is mediocre yet you put ME3 on a pedestal.

Wait...You don't betray your alies in Control and Destory is an issue of calateral damage.

Control: You betray Anderson who said, "We Destroy them, or they Destroy us." Anderson was always for Destroying the reapers, then dies saying, "I'm proud of you..." believing that you had accomplished this goal.
By picking Control you spit on his grave.
And collateral damage would still be betrayal since Shepard knew that he was murdering the Geth and EDI. It was fully intended and was his fault.

Modifié par Baa Baa, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:47 .

[SpamBot2000]

'Wow' is not the word I would use. Come to think of it, I wouldn't use a word at all.

[eddieoctane]

dreman9999 wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The problem with you point is that those people in your example face experiances the were with in their means of stratagy and tech to handle. They never had to face an unstoppable force. There has not been one battle since WW2 that acarrier was ever engaged in heavy combat. Most commanders on ships handle a support role to the units that go in for the attack.
The same can be said for the allince fleets the support earth defence. Normal a ship commander fight conventional war on there ships. They don't normal do unconventional.
Ifthe us navy suddenly had an unstoppable force attack it, ofcourse the officers would not know what to dobecause there normal tactics would not work.

My point was that practical and relevant combat experience is required for command. You missed that. Or you chose to ignore it deliberately. Either way, the poitn still stands that admirals and generals aren't paper pushers. They know how to keep a level head. The ones in ME3 all but broke down and cried like little girls. And this was only done to elevate Shepard, because Mac can't write more than one character in a room to have any competency whatsoever.

During the First Contact War, humanity was hopelessly outmatched by the Turians. It was the intervention of the Council that prevented humanity from being massacred. So humans in the ME-era have at least some experience in dealing with an overwhelming force. It stands to reason that some of the officers from that conflict would still be around (Dr. Chakwas, for example), who could provide some insight on what to do more than "We fight or we die". Bad writing is bad.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that if the statements about actual Tier One operators acting in an advisory role in the production of Medal of Honor hold true, then EA could have provided some actual military advisers to the development team of ME2 and 3. BioWare did not want this, and we got derps everywhere as a result. Instead of having any measure of logic in things like rank structure, tactics, or operations, Mac and Casey art'ed their way through, and the consumers were disappointed.

Your missing the fact the unpractical 
combat experience  is a caseof"unstoppable force cutting through all defences" is not on the normally happens.
 Unpractical  combat experience reflext to knowing how to fight an enemy the fight indirectly. You missing the fact that these of people use to having a wall of ship as a base of their tatics. If they loos the base of tactic, there not going to know what to do next.
Would the US know what to do if they faced an enemy that cut through all their military defences?

Also, don't use the fist contact war, that last for a second and it wasonly one admeral that had any heavy unconvetional combat in that war. The rest just massed in numbers and over whilmed the turians. That's not an unconventional any were near the likes ofth reapers.

So the unconventional combat experience form the First Contact War can't be learned from or adapted to any other situation that might arise? Yeah, that's retarded. And even if that wasn't among the worst and most wrong points I ever seen, a good leader can adapt. Notice how you haven't defended the Defense Committee losing their sh*t like frightened children when the Reapers showed up. Perhaps on a subconscious level, even you recognize how terrible a characterization that was of senior military commanders.

You also misunderstood what I meant by practical. Carrier COs know how to use their fighters as sword and shield before they get that post. A general incharge of a group of combined infantry, mechanized cavalry, and artillery knows how to use those resources effecitently before getting his command. In either case, front line experience is a pre-requiset to being a flag officer.

And the US did have any emeny that cut clean through its defenses. 9/11 was the result of a well coordinated attack by a group without any traditional hard targets to fight against. A funny thing happened, though. Bin Laden was killed like the scum-sucker he was. In fact, most of al Queda's senior leadership has bitten the big one. America ultimately came out on top. We have a tendency to do that.

[AlanC9]

Baa Baa wrote...

Control: You betray Anderson who said, "We Destroy them, or they Destroy us." Anderson was always for Destroying the reapers, then dies saying, "I'm proud of you..." believing that you had accomplished this goal.
By picking Control you spit on his grave.

Anderson didn't know the cost at the time. Would Anderson have sanctioned betraying the geth? Your description, not mine.

And collateral damage would still be betrayal since Shepard knew that he was murdering the Geth and EDI. It was fully intended and was his fault.

So any known consequence of an action is "intended"? You sure? Many ethical traditions disagree. 

[Baa Baa]

AlanC9 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Control: You betray Anderson who said, "We Destroy them, or they Destroy us." Anderson was always for Destroying the reapers, then dies saying, "I'm proud of you..." believing that you had accomplished this goal.
By picking Control you spit on his grave.

Anderson didn't know the cost at the time. Would Anderson have sanctioned betraying the geth? Your description, not mine.

And collateral damage would still be betrayal since Shepard knew that he was murdering the Geth and EDI. It was fully intended and was his fault.

So any known consequence of an action is "intended"? You sure? Many ethical traditions disagree. 

Intend was the wrong word for me to use there.
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

[AlanC9]

Baa Baa wrote...
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

I'm still not sure it's betrayal of the geth. What was Garrus' line? Kill 10 million here to save 20 million there? Something like that. That's logic the geth would understand, even if they happen to be the 10 million.

Anderson .. depends on your interpretation of the character. Maybe.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:22 .

[Mcfly616]

eddieoctane wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

*snip*


You're right. Shepard only did something that nobody has ever been able to do in the history of the galaxy. He only gave everybody an actual future for the first time in eons. He only provided a new beginning where anything is possible.....something that would've never happened without him. You're right, that 'means nothing'.....and being the savior of the galaxy and the only one to break the cycle, you're right again....that's not a 'legacy' at all. Lol

Wait, you mean space Jesus is entirely a new concept?


Shep being the only one to "save the galaxy" was caused by bad writing, manifested in a series of retarded actions by formerly intelligent, capable heroes. It was derp after derp that resulted in Shep saving the galaxy. A halfway competent commander could have gotten a small force on the Citadel and then things would have worked  out much better for everyone. But stupidity is somehow artistic.t

did I ever say it was a new concept? Lol no. Doesn't change what said though. Saving the galaxy is quite the legacy. I'd love to know how you top that. Oh, and I guess Asimov wasn't a good writer. I guess 2001 wasn't critically acclaimed and symbolic in its ending. I guess Contact just blowssss.....lol all of which the ending of ME3 was directly inspired. Ahh its simply your opinion though. And that's all it is. You don't prefer it or [b]comprehend what they were going for (symbolism)[/b[, one or the other, or both. Either way its whatever. I'll just assume you've never heard of or seen any classic sci.fi stories other than the juggernaughts that were Star Wars and Star Trek.

Condescension, how quaint. Critics of the ending can't understand the great symbolism.

It couldn't be that 2001 and Contact were not action films and thus people are more accepting of the protagonist failing miserably. Mass Effect 3 was constructed perfectly for the action genre, where the hero doesn't have to win. Oh wait, that's exactly what people expect from an action film/game. Master Chief and John McClane don't lose. But I guess I missed the point in time where Mass Effect became more about the art, even though it wasn't touted as an art piece until after the ending received backlash.

actually its more a part of the Sci fi genre than anything else(ever since the beginning), so sorry to burst your bubble. The story has always had sci fi roots. Not "action movie" roots....I guess I missed the point where the "protagonist failed miserably".....you know, considering he saved the galaxy and all. Keep sipping that half-empty glass bud. Lol


Edit: oh, and Ms. Foster didn't fail in Contact either. She succeeded. You have things a little twisted

Modifié par Mcfly616, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Bill Casey]

Baa Baa wrote...

Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.

If the Geth were in a position to wipe out the Reapers completely and it would also mean the death of the humans, I would expect no less from them...

What I would not accept is them altering everyone and hooking them up to the reapers or creating an omnipotent overlord to watch over everyone...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:35 .

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

I'm still not sure it's betrayal of the geth. What was Garrus' line? Kill 10 million here to save 20 million there? Something like that. That's logic the geth would understand, even if they happen to be the 10 million.

Anderson .. depends on your interpretation of the character. Maybe.

your still causing genocide of an entire race

[dreman9999]

eddieoctane wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

eddieoctane wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
The problem with you point is that those people in your example face experiances the were with in their means of stratagy and tech to handle. They never had to face an unstoppable force. There has not been one battle since WW2 that acarrier was ever engaged in heavy combat. Most commanders on ships handle a support role to the units that go in for the attack.
The same can be said for the allince fleets the support earth defence. Normal a ship commander fight conventional war on there ships. They don't normal do unconventional.
Ifthe us navy suddenly had an unstoppable force attack it, ofcourse the officers would not know what to dobecause there normal tactics would not work.

My point was that practical and relevant combat experience is required for command. You missed that. Or you chose to ignore it deliberately. Either way, the poitn still stands that admirals and generals aren't paper pushers. They know how to keep a level head. The ones in ME3 all but broke down and cried like little girls. And this was only done to elevate Shepard, because Mac can't write more than one character in a room to have any competency whatsoever.

During the First Contact War, humanity was hopelessly outmatched by the Turians. It was the intervention of the Council that prevented humanity from being massacred. So humans in the ME-era have at least some experience in dealing with an overwhelming force. It stands to reason that some of the officers from that conflict would still be around (Dr. Chakwas, for example), who could provide some insight on what to do more than "We fight or we die". Bad writing is bad.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that if the statements about actual Tier One operators acting in an advisory role in the production of Medal of Honor hold true, then EA could have provided some actual military advisers to the development team of ME2 and 3. BioWare did not want this, and we got derps everywhere as a result. Instead of having any measure of logic in things like rank structure, tactics, or operations, Mac and Casey art'ed their way through, and the consumers were disappointed.

Your missing the fact the unpractical 
combat experience  is a caseof"unstoppable force cutting through all defences" is not on the normally happens.
 Unpractical  combat experience reflext to knowing how to fight an enemy the fight indirectly. You missing the fact that these of people use to having a wall of ship as a base of their tatics. If they loos the base of tactic, there not going to know what to do next.
Would the US know what to do if they faced an enemy that cut through all their military defences?

Also, don't use the fist contact war, that last for a second and it wasonly one admeral that had any heavy unconvetional combat in that war. The rest just massed in numbers and over whilmed the turians. That's not an unconventional any were near the likes ofth reapers.

So the unconventional combat experience form the First Contact War can't be learned from or adapted to any other situation that might arise? Yeah, that's retarded. And even if that wasn't among the worst and most wrong points I ever seen, a good leader can adapt. Notice how you haven't defended the Defense Committee losing their sh*t like frightened children when the Reapers showed up. Perhaps on a subconscious level, even you recognize how terrible a characterization that was of senior military commanders.

You also misunderstood what I meant by practical. Carrier COs know how to use their fighters as sword and shield before they get that post. A general incharge of a group of combined infantry, mechanized cavalry, and artillery knows how to use those resources effecitently before getting his command. In either case, front line experience is a pre-requiset to being a flag officer.

And the US did have any emeny that cut clean through its defenses. 9/11 was the result of a well coordinated attack by a group without any traditional hard targets to fight against. A funny thing happened, though. Bin Laden was killed like the scum-sucker he was. In fact, most of al Queda's senior leadership has bitten the big one. America ultimately came out on top. We have a tendency to do that.

Your not getting that what was learned in the first contact war can be applied to this war. The first contact war was a battle of equal forces , the reaper war is not. The only admeral that fought unconvential in the war was booted out of the alliance for surendering to the turians.

The alliace is not use to fight wars were they are the vastly lesser force and have not developt tactics for it. Any unconventional tactic they learn would be based on anti terroist tactics...This would mean learning to fight an enem that does not attack directly.

A militarty with a history with a dependence of force is not going to suddenly know how to fight and stop and enemy the fights in a dramaticly stronger force. Not even the trurian could do that.

Also, 9/11 is an example of an indirect attack.  They cut through USdefences to do one attack. I'm taking about a force that overwhelms the US military out of sheer force, not indirect tactic. And even then the US military was spining on it's head not knowing what to do.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:34 .

[eddieoctane]

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

I'm still not sure it's betrayal of the geth. What was Garrus' line? Kill 10 million here to save 20 million there? Something like that. That's logic the geth would understand, even if they happen to be the 10 million.

Anderson .. depends on your interpretation of the character. Maybe.

your still causing genocide of an entire race

And EDI, though she would probably willingly sacrifice herself to save Joker.

[Mcfly616]

They wouldn't be destroyed had they not received Reaper tech. Ofcourse, the consequences could not be foreseen, and I was not the one that gave them the Reaper tech. They are collateral. My intentions were never to kill the Geth. By chance they got Reaper tech, and by chance, the only way to rid the Galaxy of Reapers, is to Destroy all Reaper tech. Unfortunate circumstances.

[Baa Baa]

Bill Casey wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.

If they were in a position to wipe out the Reapers completely and it would also mean the death of the humans, I would expect no less from them...

What I would not accept is them altering everyone and hooking them up to the reapers or creating an omnipotent overlord to watch over everyone...

I'm not saying it's the worst choice. I actually think Destroy is acceptable, I still think it's betraying some of your friends though.

[Baa Baa]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Let's face the brutal truth. ME3 was overflowing with all sorts of suspension of disbelief moments. So many that I was losing touch with reality while playing the game and to the point that characters I once deemed smart appeared to have gotten some kind of serious brain damage. 

Pretty much this.

[dreman9999]

eddieoctane wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

I'm still not sure it's betrayal of the geth. What was Garrus' line? Kill 10 million here to save 20 million there? Something like that. That's logic the geth would understand, even if they happen to be the 10 million.

Anderson .. depends on your interpretation of the character. Maybe.

your still causing genocide of an entire race

And EDI, though she would probably willingly sacrifice herself to save Joker.

As hard as it mustbe to do, it's call casualties of war.
Garrus said it best when he pointed out that in a war like this a person is forced to let a million here die to save a billion.

[Baa Baa]

AlanC9 wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...
Is it not betrayal?
People ally with you and you destroy them.
And yeah I don't think Anderson would have even considered the other choice, especially since he's the one whose shown making the choice in the "vision" thing that Shepard has.

I'm still not sure it's betrayal of the geth. What was Garrus' line? Kill 10 million here to save 20 million there? Something like that. That's logic the geth would understand, even if they happen to be the 10 million.

Anderson .. depends on your interpretation of the character. Maybe.

I'm not saying it's not the right choice. I actually think Destroy is the best of the 4 endings, but I still see killing the Geth as a betrayal (although I think Destroying them could actually lead to a better future for Synthetics as well, since all organics will know of their sacrifice if Shepard tells them. Synthetics could actually start out being treated well once they're remade/repaired).

[Bill Casey]

dreman9999 wrote...

As hard as it mustbe to do, it's call casualties of war.
Garrus said it best when he pointed out that in a war like this a person is forced to let a million here die to save a billion.

To which Shepard can rebutt at first...
Later on, there's a conversation with Garrus where he has to hold the fleet back and wait for the crucible, but if he's wrong, a lot more turians are going to die. Shepard asks if there's no other way, and Garrus says if there is, he can't see them, it all boils down to the Crucible. To which Shepard, now dishearted, says "...and ruthless calculus"

There's also a conversation after curing the genophage where Garrus says it's nice when we can save the galaxy without destroying another race along the way. Garrus walks away, Shepard stares off for a moment and replies, "let's hope our luck holds"...

Bioware, you bastards...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:53 .

[macrocarl]

Ruined the Franchise wrote...

EC added everything after the scene of your crew crashing on that planet, apart from the scene with the snow world planet of the adult and kid.
It also added the scene where your help crew escape on the run down to the teleportation device.

I would recommend not thinking about the plot too much but you seem noobish enough so you probably don't care about plots and plot holes.

This comes off as really condescending. And on top of that, there aren't anymajor plot holes in ME3. And I can tell you that as a person who is not new to the game at all. PEACE