Who said protect? How about just assisting?HellbirdIV wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
We don't know what the Council would do if an asari colony was attacked instead of Eden Prime (but I'm guessing a fleet would be involved)
Y'know, the Alliance has a pretty decent sized fleet of its own. I imagine if an asari colony was attacked, the asari military would respond. Why should the asari send their fleets to do the Systems Alliance fleet's job?
As I said, if the Systems Alliance wanted the Council to protect them militarily they should have become a protectorate under the Turian Hierarchy.
Who's to blame?
Débuté par
garrus and ashley squad
, août 02 2013 01:27
#276
Posté 05 août 2013 - 02:45
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 283 messages
Retour en haut
#277
Posté 05 août 2013 - 02:57
HellbirdIV
-
- Members
- 1 373 messages
Steelcan wrote...
How about just assisting?
Military intervention in the internal politics of another nation is bad, yo.
What if the turians did defend the Alliance? How long would it take for the Alliance to become dependent on the turians for protection, and technology, and economic support - and bam, you're an integrated Protectorate.
#278
Posté 05 août 2013 - 03:00
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 283 messages
. Asking for military assistence with say patrols or weapons sales is what I am talking about. Or ship building ventures like the Normandy. That kind of stuff but on a bigger scale.HellbirdIV wrote...
Steelcan wrote...
How about just assisting?
Military intervention in the internal politics of another nation is bad, yo.
What if the turians did defend the Alliance? How long would it take for the Alliance to become dependent on the turians for protection, and technology, and economic support - and bam, you're an integrated Protectorate.
#279
Posté 05 août 2013 - 03:26
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 806 messages
HellbirdIV wrote...
War is an economic struggle - Earth is a fairly low-population planet compared to other Citadel homeworlds, and it's already fallen by the time you reach the Citadel. Nothing would be gained from trying to retake it by force.
Pre-invasion population is roughly Thessia and Palaven combined. Where did you get that the population was relatively low compared to the other Council homeworlds? Heck Earth's population is even larger than the Salarians, who basically live to breed.
Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 août 2013 - 03:28 .
#280
Posté 05 août 2013 - 04:14
Barquiel
-
- Members
- 5 847 messages
KaiserShep wrote...
HellbirdIV wrote...
War is an economic struggle - Earth is a fairly low-population planet compared to other Citadel homeworlds, and it's already fallen by the time you reach the Citadel. Nothing would be gained from trying to retake it by force.
Pre-invasion population is roughly Thessia and Palaven combined. Where did you get that the population was relatively low compared to the other Council homeworlds? Heck Earth's population is even larger than the Salarians, who basically live to breed.
You're right, Earth has the largest population. But trying to retake Earth at the beginning of the war would have been a suicide mission. To quote the codex...
Persistent rumors suggest that Udina might have been a high-functioning victim of Reaper indoctrination. His actions played right into the Reapers' plans: even if the coup failed, it would damage Citadel governance. If it succeeded, his plan to retake Earth would likely have turned into a military blunder that Council forces could ill afford. However, there is no direct evidence of his indoctrination, nor obvious opportunity. It is more likely that Udina acted out of desperation, and in doing so, cost humanity its councilor.
The whole "send your fleets to save Earth" angle never made a lot of sense. Earth only becomes important after the Citadel gets moved there, but that doesn't happen until late in the game (and even if Tevos or Valern told their forces to go die in the skies of Earth...the Dalatrass and the matriarchs never would've agreed to waste their fleets).
#281
Posté 05 août 2013 - 01:32
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 806 messages
Neither Shepard or Liara insisted on a full assault on the reapers at the time they went before the Council. What they DID ask for, however, was assistance in building the Prothean weapon, which the Asari conveniently paid no attention to until the reapers made all their border bolstering irrelevant. It's fine and dandy that a treaty with a non-council race is established to aid in holding the reapers on another council home world, but I guess earth doesn't count.
Modifié par KaiserShep, 05 août 2013 - 01:34 .
#282
Posté 05 août 2013 - 02:25
Barquiel
-
- Members
- 5 847 messages
KaiserShep wrote...
Neither Shepard or Liara insisted on a full assault on the reapers at the time they went before the Council. What they DID ask for, however, was assistance in building the Prothean weapon, which the Asari conveniently paid no attention to until the reapers made all their border bolstering irrelevant. It's fine and dandy that a treaty with a non-council race is established to aid in holding the reapers on another council home world, but I guess earth doesn't count.
Not Liara. But Udina insisted on a full assault on the reapers at the time they went before the Council (Tevos: Each of us faces a similar situation. If we lend you our strenght to help Earth our own worlds will fall. Valern: And so we should just follow you to Earth?). And remember Shepards speech to Primarch Victus about how they need the turian fleets to help Earth while Palaven is burning in the background?
The crucible...I partially agree. But keep in mind that we don't know what it is or what it does (and the salarian councilor described it as a colossal undertaking). I mean, that's our plan...
- Let's build the Crucible (we don't know what it does and it didn't saved the protheans)
- We build the largest fleet/army in galactic history
- We jump the fleet/ground forces and the crucible into Sol system (why Sol, and not Palavan or Thessia?)
- Something exciting happens...
- Profit!
One could argue that their scepticism is somewhat understandable
Modifié par Barquiel, 05 août 2013 - 02:30 .
#283
Posté 05 août 2013 - 02:58
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 283 messages
The whole point of the game is that you are making Alliances and building the Crucible so you can take back Earth.
What does Shepard say as he is leaving Vancouver? "I'll be back for you and I will bring every fleet I can". The point of the game is gathering allies to liberate Earth, Udina just tried to do it faster. Would an attack to retake Earth be suicide? Probably, but I seem to recall Shepard having some experience with overwhelming odds.
You may disagree with this focus on Earth, but it is the way the game was constructed and advertised. The ads didn't have the tagline "kill the Reapers", no it was "Take back Earth".
What does Shepard say as he is leaving Vancouver? "I'll be back for you and I will bring every fleet I can". The point of the game is gathering allies to liberate Earth, Udina just tried to do it faster. Would an attack to retake Earth be suicide? Probably, but I seem to recall Shepard having some experience with overwhelming odds.
You may disagree with this focus on Earth, but it is the way the game was constructed and advertised. The ads didn't have the tagline "kill the Reapers", no it was "Take back Earth".
#284
Guest_csm4267_*
Posté 07 août 2013 - 05:19
Guest_csm4267_*
Guest_csm4267_*
-
- Guests
According to some radio chatter during the Priority Earth mission, the Reapers wiped out 90-100% of all the forces who tried to retake Earth. So technically you did retake Earth, but the Reapers essentially "steamrolled" over all your resistance you sent to take the Earth back.
Those ads weren't technically in game footage, but rather cinematic trailers (full CGI). Not realy misleading, as marketing is designed to make something look better than it actually is. Companies do this all the time to sell things. Some companies will use in game footage in their trailers, while others will have CGI (game looks nothing like that, I've played it). Like a movie trailer that looks really good, but when you watch it in theatres, it's not quite the same as the trailers.
Just, the way it was presented was a sense of desperation and hopelessness against an overwhelming and overpowered enemy force. Reapers are millions if not billions of years more advanced than us, and can easily wipe us out without using all their forces.
The same similar line was uttered in the first few minutes of the game, and again if you talked to EDI during the Earth mission. Even early in the game, they said "the Reapers are using our own tactics against us".
People seem to forget that's the kind of enemy we're dealing with. It wasn't going to be like Mass Effect 1 or 2, where we win because we did all the right stuff and had everyone loyal. Not going to be that easy this time around.
Victory won't come without cost, and sometimes the best path to victory is ultimately the most brutal one. This was a line foreshadowed sometime in the game.
We beat the Reapers, or we die trying. Complete galactic extinction. This is what the third game is. The start of that galactic extinction cycle that they talked about in the first game.
The end of the game is nothing more than a visceral punch to the gut. This is what fighting a real war is like. Bioware took a page out of World War 2 it seems.
Not some Hollywood pap where you overcome impossible odds and celebrate at the end.
Those ads weren't technically in game footage, but rather cinematic trailers (full CGI). Not realy misleading, as marketing is designed to make something look better than it actually is. Companies do this all the time to sell things. Some companies will use in game footage in their trailers, while others will have CGI (game looks nothing like that, I've played it). Like a movie trailer that looks really good, but when you watch it in theatres, it's not quite the same as the trailers.
Just, the way it was presented was a sense of desperation and hopelessness against an overwhelming and overpowered enemy force. Reapers are millions if not billions of years more advanced than us, and can easily wipe us out without using all their forces.
The same similar line was uttered in the first few minutes of the game, and again if you talked to EDI during the Earth mission. Even early in the game, they said "the Reapers are using our own tactics against us".
People seem to forget that's the kind of enemy we're dealing with. It wasn't going to be like Mass Effect 1 or 2, where we win because we did all the right stuff and had everyone loyal. Not going to be that easy this time around.
Victory won't come without cost, and sometimes the best path to victory is ultimately the most brutal one. This was a line foreshadowed sometime in the game.
We beat the Reapers, or we die trying. Complete galactic extinction. This is what the third game is. The start of that galactic extinction cycle that they talked about in the first game.
The end of the game is nothing more than a visceral punch to the gut. This is what fighting a real war is like. Bioware took a page out of World War 2 it seems.
Not some Hollywood pap where you overcome impossible odds and celebrate at the end.
Modifié par csm4267, 07 août 2013 - 05:36 .
#285
Posté 07 août 2013 - 05:36
garrus and ashley squad
-
- Members
- 298 messages
csm4267 wrote...
According to some radio chatter during the Priority Earth mission, the Reapers wiped out 90-100% of all the forces who tried to retake Earth. So technically you did retake Earth, but the Reapers essentially "steamrolled" over all your resistance you sent to take the Earth back.
Those ads weren't technically in game footage, but rather cinematic trailers (full CGI). Not realy misleading, as marketing is designed to make something look better than it actually is. Companies do this all the time to sell things. Like a movie trailer that looks really good, but when you watch it in theatres, it's not quite the same as the trailers.
Just, the way it was presented was a sense of desperation and hopelessness against an overwhelming and overpowered enemy force. Reapers are millions if not billions of years more advanced than us, and can easily wipe us out without using all their forces.
The same similar line was uttered in the first few minutes of the game, and again if you talked to EDI during the Earth mission. Even early in the game, they said "the Reapers are using our own tactics against us".
People seem to forget that's the kind of enemy we're dealing with. It wasn't going to be like Mass Effect 1 or 2, where we win because we did all the right stuff and had everyone loyal. Not going to be that easy this time around.
Victory won't come without cost, and sometimes the best path to victory is ultimately the most brutal one. This was a line foreshadowed sometime in the game.
We beat the Reapers, or we die trying. Complete galactic extinction, followed by game over message at the end. This is what the third game is. The start of that galactic extinction cycle that they talked about in the first game.
The end of the game is nothing more than a visceral punch to the gut. This is what fighting a real war is like. Bioware took a page out of World War 2 it seems.
Not some Hollywood pap where you overcome impossible odds and celebrate at the end.
If that's the case then why not have it like the suicide mission, where they don't expect you to survive. You could of went that route where A. Everyone can live B. Only some can live or C. No one lives. I think everyone would be happy with that. Also not everyone came out okay, even if your team did survive. Legion dies either way, mordin usually dies. The asari, tourians, and humans have lost a lot of people. You already had of people dying in the game. So of course victory won't come without cost you a lot of people have already died.
#286
Guest_csm4267_*
Posté 07 août 2013 - 05:41
Guest_csm4267_*
Guest_csm4267_*
-
- Guests
Mass Effect 2 wasn't a "suicide mission", because if you did everything right, everyone lives. Like I said, as long as you got everyone loyal, that happens. That's not a true suicide mission, if everyone has a chance to live. Not going to work with Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 3 is the suicide mission to end all suicide missions. This was a real suicide mission, not some watered down stuff.
Still don't get the whole "Shepard and squadmates live at the cost of everyone else" (if that's what you meant). Sounds like using the galaxy for canon fodder in order to make sure Shepard and Garrus can have drinks or you build Tali's house at the end. I think they used the term "conscientious objector" in Futurama to describe this. A coward. Fry got demoted because of this, and Bender got promoted because he saved some guy from getting blown up.
Essenaily you go hide in a hole, everyone else wins the war for you. You go celebrate with your squadmates at the cost of the rest of the galaxy. Not gonna happen. I'd happily sacrifice my squad if it meant I would win this war. They said this same line in the first game. Everyone would happily die for the greater good as long as you dealt with Saren. Same thing here. Victory through heavy sacrifice was one of the themes of this game.
Just seems like people wanted to end this war on their terms, but it wasn't meant to be.
Just don't think the fanbase was ready to handle the reality of a war story, judging by some of the stuff I've seen. All that talk about relays blowing up and stranding everyone is no different than people fighting over in Europe and never knowing that they'd ever make it back home alive. World War 2, just like Bioware took a page out of the history books.
Think that is what you are getting at.
Still don't get the whole "Shepard and squadmates live at the cost of everyone else" (if that's what you meant). Sounds like using the galaxy for canon fodder in order to make sure Shepard and Garrus can have drinks or you build Tali's house at the end. I think they used the term "conscientious objector" in Futurama to describe this. A coward. Fry got demoted because of this, and Bender got promoted because he saved some guy from getting blown up.
Essenaily you go hide in a hole, everyone else wins the war for you. You go celebrate with your squadmates at the cost of the rest of the galaxy. Not gonna happen. I'd happily sacrifice my squad if it meant I would win this war. They said this same line in the first game. Everyone would happily die for the greater good as long as you dealt with Saren. Same thing here. Victory through heavy sacrifice was one of the themes of this game.
Just seems like people wanted to end this war on their terms, but it wasn't meant to be.
Just don't think the fanbase was ready to handle the reality of a war story, judging by some of the stuff I've seen. All that talk about relays blowing up and stranding everyone is no different than people fighting over in Europe and never knowing that they'd ever make it back home alive. World War 2, just like Bioware took a page out of the history books.
What confuses me is that fans wanted a different option. They wanted a
"good" choice, where Shepard finds a way to destroy the Reapers while
preserving the rest of the galaxy. They wanted to see the Commander
kicking it with his crewmates on an empty battlefield littered with
Reaper corpses, silently nodding to each other and smiling for a job
well done.
If I had unknowingly chosen an option like that, I would undoubtedly be
incredibly pissed. In an ending where everyone lives, and everything is
returned to order in the galaxy, the player is basically told, "Good
job! Thank goodness you were able to make such a deep, high-risk, all
or nothing decision, and got through it without having any sort of
consequences or repercussions whatsoever! Now everyone can live happily
ever after!"
That would be BS. Mass Effect has always been about consequences
for your actions. If the storyline suddenly threw out this core idea
during its final moments, it would cease to be the emotional roller
coaster that it has always been.
Think that is what you are getting at.
Modifié par csm4267, 07 août 2013 - 06:04 .
#287
Posté 07 août 2013 - 05:44
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 251 messages
csm4267 wrote...
Not going to work with Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 3 is the suicide mission to end all suicide missions. This was a real suicide mission, not some watered down stuff.
That's why everybody lived in my game.
Everybody who isn't scripted to die.
#288
Posté 07 août 2013 - 06:04
garrus and ashley squad
-
- Members
- 298 messages
csm4267 wrote...
Mass Effect 2 wasn't a "suicide mission", because if you did everything right, everyone lives. Like I said, as long as you got everyone loyal, that happens. That's not a true suicide mission, if everyone has a chance to live. Not going to work with Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect 3 is the suicide mission to end all suicide missions. This was a real suicide mission, not some watered down stuff.
Still don't get the whole "Shepard and squadmates live at the cost of everyone else" (if that's what you meant). Sounds like using the galaxy for canon fodder in order to make sure Shepard and Garrus can have drinks or you build Tali's house at the end. I think they used the term "conscientious objector" in Futurama to describe this. A coward. Fry got demoted because of this, and Bender got promoted because he saved some guy from getting blown up. Essenaily you go hide in a hole, everyone else wins the war for you. You go celebrate.
Just don't think the fanbase was ready to handle the reality of a war story, judging by some of the stuff I've seen. All that talk about relays blowing up and stranding everyone is no different than people fighting over in Europe and never knowing that they'd ever make it back home alive. World War 2, just like Bioware took a page out of the history books.What confuses me is that fans wanted a different option. They wanted a
"good" choice, where Shepard finds a way to destroy the Reapers while
preserving the rest of the galaxy. They wanted to see the Commander
kicking it with his crewmates on an empty battlefield littered with
Reaper corpses, silently nodding to each other and smiling for a job
well done.
If I had unknowingly chosen an option like that, I would undoubtedly be
incredibly pissed. In an ending where everyone lives, and everything is
returned to order in the galaxy, the player is basically told, "Good
job! Thank goodness you were able to make such a deep, high-risk, all
or nothing decision, and got through it without having any sort of
consequences or repercussions whatsoever! Now everyone can live happily
ever after!"
That would be BS. Mass Effect has always been about consequences
for your actions. If the storyline suddenly threw out this core idea
during its final moments, it would cease to be the emotional roller
coaster that it has always been.
Think that is what you are getting at.
If that's the case they didn't really build it that way. They marketted me2 as a suicide mission and me3 as to take back earth. Also some of your squadmates do die in me3. you don't get the chance to save some of them, as in me2 where you can, which was fine for me. If you give us the choice why build our forces that much just to say ok, this doesn't matter. True war does not mean you have a good time and go home happy, but they still did that the wrong way. Even if your squad did survive, a lot of the galaxy has been torn apart by the war, and like I said not all of them do live. There should be an option though if you get all the assets and everything you need. Then you should at least live, if not why go through all that, for me though that should be only if you have collected everything.
#290
Posté 07 août 2013 - 02:35
dublin omega 223
-
- Members
- 448 messages
I blame both the Geth and, the Geth for killing innocent Quarian civilians during the uprising and the Citadel Council for not helping the Quarians that let the hatred the Quarians had for the Geth linger and grow instead of giving them a chance to move on.
Modifié par dublin omega 223, 07 août 2013 - 03:07 .
#291
Posté 07 août 2013 - 03:00
AlexMBrennan
-
- Members
- 7 002 messages
If you put guns on civilian ships they cease to be civilans, and putting civilians on military ships is a violation of the Geneva convention:innocent quarian civilans
The quarians stupidly decided to fight to the last man, and predictably suffered horrific casualties as a result.7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
#292
Posté 07 août 2013 - 03:03
HellbirdIV
-
- Members
- 1 373 messages
AlexMBrennan wrote...
If you put guns on civilian ships they cease to be civilans, and putting civilians on military ships is a violation of the Geneva conventioninnocent quarian civilans
The quarians aren't bound by the Citadel conventions (Space equivalent of the Geneva conventions, which itself wouldn't apply to any spacefaring species but humans). That doesn't make them putting civilians in harm's way any better, though - if anything, it makes them worse.
#293
Posté 07 août 2013 - 03:09
dublin omega 223
-
- Members
- 448 messages
HellbirdIV wrote...
AlexMBrennan wrote...
If you put guns on civilian ships they cease to be civilans, and putting civilians on military ships is a violation of the Geneva conventioninnocent quarian civilans
The quarians aren't bound by the Citadel conventions (Space equivalent of the Geneva conventions, which itself wouldn't apply to any spacefaring species but humans). That doesn't make them putting civilians in harm's way any better, though - if anything, it makes them worse.
They arent bound by the Citadel Conventions as their embassy was closed by the Council.
