1765 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

CronoDragoon wrote...

wright1978 wrote...
His task force did something, maybe not the huge thing that would have happened if the Turian Primarch had of actually believed but he took the token force and deployed it to its maximum. Shep accomplished nothing other than eating hot food and sleeping in soft beds.

Which means what exactly? What did he accomplish? Anything?

I don't particularly mind that Shep makes the bad choice to believe he can actually get the alliance to do something. I'm just annoyed i'm never given the option to express my annoyance at it.

I thought there was a Renegade response that did, but it's been awhile so I'll take your word for it. Yes, Shepard should be able to express frustration at the situation if he doesn't.

Garrus lists the things he uses the taskforce for in dialogue when you talk to him.

Any time his incarceration is brought up auto-shep excuses it. I'd love to have been allowed to express my Shep's infuriation that they were forced to sit in Alliance custody right up to the moment the Reapers obliterated Alliance command when he/she could have been doing anything else and would have been more productive.

[Invisible Man]

AlanC9 wrote...

George Costanza wrote...


And you ignored practically everything I said to quibble about an analogy. It's not a perfect analogy, no. It's merely there to highlight the absurdity of pooling an enormous amount of resources into building a weapon you know next to nothing about, or even how to finish, when you're in the middle of a massive war.

So your point is that putting resources into a long-shot plan is a worse strategy than accepting inevitable defeat? I wasn't offering a correction to your analogy because you had a bad analogy. The analogy itself is fine for the point you were trying to make; it's the substantive point itself that's bad.

Putting "an enormous amount of resources into building a weapon you know next to nothing about, or even how to finish, when you're in the middle of a massive war" is a bad idea if you have any other conceivable way to win that war. But if you don't...

I think the point was more along the lines of: why put massive amounts of resources into a device we know next to nothing about, or aren't even capable of finishing at that point in time -- when you could spend those resources on lots & lots of dreadnoughts?

[fr33stylez]

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

[fr33stylez]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Considering Shepard witnessed that the Reapers were minutes away from invading the galaxy in Arrival, why would he agree to fly to earth and remain in lockdown for 6 months while the Reapers fly to the next Relay?

Because Shepard, unlike the BSN dwelling wannabe rambos, realised that there is no way he could possibly do anything to stop an invading armada on with his dozen random henchmen? You need resources (shipyards, weapons, crew for hundreds of warships, scientists) so unless you want Shepard to magically pull all of these things from his read (like Cerberus did) there's nothing Shepard can do without the support of the Alliance or Council.

Hypothetical question: Shepard evades capture and is now on the run from the Alliance, and the baterians who are now out for his blood will probably have put out a substantial bounty on Shepard's head. How is Shepard - one single infantryman - going to stop an armada of superdreadnoughts (ships impervious to conventional dreadnought fire capable of taking out conventional dreadnoughts with a single hit). What would you have Shepard do?

Again, how is anything that actually transpired between ME2 and ME3 address anyting you said above? What resources did Shepard gather between Arrival and the invasion? Everyone in the galaxy reacted to the invasion, not to anything Shepard did.

Why would the Alliance be after Shepard? What did he do? Is Hackett also under custody?

Why would the Batarians be satisfied with Shepard simply being under lockdown? Why not attack? What was the Allaince gameplan? Wait for the Reapers to invade so the Batarians would forget/be already dead?

What was the Alliance's excuse if you didn't play Arrival? Why wasn't there war b/w the Alliance and Batarians?

Alliance: Oh an Alliance Spec Op team threw an Asteroid into 300K Batarians...but they're dead too so it's all good!....oh and we have Shepard in lockdown!
Batarians: K 

If Shepard was so willing to enlist the help of the Alliance, it makes me wonder why he did do that when he woke up ont he ship of a terrorist organization.

What would I have done? If they reveal the uncovering of the Superweapon by Liara snooping around some archives in Mars, they surely could've built a narrative where Shepard and his team I dont know...discovered it on their own, then presented that evidence to the council? He was a Spectre after all.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 07 février 2014 - 08:05 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Invisible Man wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

George Costanza wrote...


And you ignored practically everything I said to quibble about an analogy. It's not a perfect analogy, no. It's merely there to highlight the absurdity of pooling an enormous amount of resources into building a weapon you know next to nothing about, or even how to finish, when you're in the middle of a massive war.

So your point is that putting resources into a long-shot plan is a worse strategy than accepting inevitable defeat? I wasn't offering a correction to your analogy because you had a bad analogy. The analogy itself is fine for the point you were trying to make; it's the substantive point itself that's bad.

Putting "an enormous amount of resources into building a weapon you know next to nothing about, or even how to finish, when you're in the middle of a massive war" is a bad idea if you have any other conceivable way to win that war. But if you don't...

I think the point was more along the lines of: why put massive amounts of resources into a device we know next to nothing about, or aren't even capable of finishing at that point in time -- when you could spend those resources on lots & lots of dreadnoughts?

But this point was addressed. The "build dreadnoughts" plan only has value if we have any kind of faith in the idea of a conventional victory. Or if you're simply trying to take out as many Reapers as possible, survival be damned.

But if you're committed to this cycle's survival and given that every authority figure believes conventional victory is absolutely impossible, we're left with unconventional/insane solutions to our problems.

[Fixers0]

fr33stylez wrote...
What was the Alliance's excuse if you didn't play Arrival? Why wasn't there war b/w the Alliance and Batarians?

Aiding the enemy.

[AlanC9]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...
I think the point was more along the lines of: why put massive amounts of resources into a device we know next to nothing about, or aren't even capable of finishing at that point in time -- when you could spend those resources on lots & lots of dreadnoughts?

But this point was addressed. The "build dreadnoughts" plan only has value if we have any kind of faith in the idea of a conventional victory. Or if you're simply trying to take out as many Reapers as possible, survival be damned.

But if you're committed to this cycle's survival and given that every authority figure believes conventional victory is absolutely impossible, we're left with unconventional/insane solutions to our problems.

Right. Dreadnoughts apparently take years to build in the MEU, the same as warships in our era do; the Treaty of Farixen doesn't make much sense if you can just whip up dreadnoughts in a month or two.  And the Citadel races don't have years, not anymore. If they'd started building dreadnoughts back at the end of ME1, it'd be another matter. 

Maybe a zerg rush with lots of fighters would be a more realistic project. But remember, the efficiency of any alternate strategy is whatever Bio wants it to be. When an Alliance, turian, or asari strategist crunches the numbers, she'll get whatever answer Bio builds into the universe.

Unless the argument is that Citadel strategists would delude themselves into believing that a non-Crucible win was possible regardless of the truth of the situation?

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 février 2014 - 10:35 .

[von uber]

Having just replayed LotSB, I forgot how good that was. Really makes up for the ******-poor Illium meeting.

[Jadebaby]

Why are you all replying?

This isn't about discussion or debate, it's about bad lines in teh saga....

We type them or we die!

[RangerSG]

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

[Obadiah]

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Quite right. And it could have still been coopted by the Catalyst at the end.

Personally, I think the only reason we got the "don't know what it does" message hammered into us is that we were asking Hackett. Pretty sure if we asked some of the people constructing it they would have had a much better explanation, but ending in, "not 100% sure of the complete effect."

[RangerSG]

fr33stylez wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Considering Shepard witnessed that the Reapers were minutes away from invading the galaxy in Arrival, why would he agree to fly to earth and remain in lockdown for 6 months while the Reapers fly to the next Relay?

Because Shepard, unlike the BSN dwelling wannabe rambos, realised that there is no way he could possibly do anything to stop an invading armada on with his dozen random henchmen? You need resources (shipyards, weapons, crew for hundreds of warships, scientists) so unless you want Shepard to magically pull all of these things from his read (like Cerberus did) there's nothing Shepard can do without the support of the Alliance or Council.

Hypothetical question: Shepard evades capture and is now on the run from the Alliance, and the baterians who are now out for his blood will probably have put out a substantial bounty on Shepard's head. How is Shepard - one single infantryman - going to stop an armada of superdreadnoughts (ships impervious to conventional dreadnought fire capable of taking out conventional dreadnoughts with a single hit). What would you have Shepard do?

Again, how is anything that actually transpired between ME2 and ME3 address anyting you said above? What resources did Shepard gather between Arrival and the invasion? Everyone in the galaxy reacted to the invasion, not to anything Shepard did.

Why would the Alliance be after Shepard? What did he do? Is Hackett also under custody?

Why would the Batarians be satisfied with Shepard simply being under lockdown? Why not attack? What was the Allaince gameplan? Wait for the Reapers to invade so the Batarians would forget/be already dead?

What was the Alliance's excuse if you didn't play Arrival? Why wasn't there war b/w the Alliance and Batarians?

Alliance: Oh an Alliance Spec Op team threw an Asteroid into 300K Batarians...but they're dead too so it's all good!....oh and we have Shepard in lockdown!
Batarians: K 

If Shepard was so willing to enlist the help of the Alliance, it makes me wonder why he did do that when he woke up ont he ship of a terrorist organization.

What would I have done? If they reveal the uncovering of the Superweapon by Liara snooping around some archives in Mars, they surely could've built a narrative where Shepard and his team I dont know...discovered it on their own, then presented that evidence to the council? He was a Spectre after all.

Exactly. This is why I've said the beginning would've been better if Mars and Earth 1 were reversed. It's a logical bridge from ME2. Liara asks for Shepard to come to the Archives, because she's found a device that can stop the Reapers. Whatever their relationship, that would get Shep's attention.

They could even still have the full Cerberus attack here, with TIM either betraying Shepard or gunning for revenge for blowing the Collector Base up. The Archives are no less valuable to Cerberus, after all.

After recovering the plans, it's clear that they will need more resources than a lone Spectre on a ship of no set allegiance could procure. The most obvious and immediate location to look for such aid would be Earth. Since Shepard would already know the Reapers were in Batarian space (Arrival done or not, they're there), immediacy is a priority. Especially since we know the Council will dither, and negotiate, and hem, and haw, and air-quote "Reapers" to Shepard. So going back to the Alliance would make sense.

And you get there just in time to watch Earth get scorched, just like the game does now.

Logical bridge from ME2 to ME3. One that keeps dramatic tension that the 6 month time jump loses, and one that keeps Shepard as an agent, rather than make a faux-dramatic trial sequence that contradicts established lore regarding Spectre authority and Alliance Chain of Command. 

[dreamgazer]

Jadebaby wrote...

Why are you all replying?

This isn't about discussion or debate, it's about bad lines in teh saga....

We type them or we die!

Meh.  The BSN is just a machine, and machines can be broken!

[themikefest]

the Citadel dlc when your at the car dealership and you get the lines
"Having a bad day" and "I like your outfit" that whole scene was crap.

meeting the robot on the presidium and it talks about having a relationship with Joker

[TheMyron]

dreamgazer wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Why are you all replying?

This isn't about discussion or debate, it's about bad lines in teh saga....

We type them or we die!

Meh.  The BSN is just a machine, and machines can be broken!

BSN likes seeing people on their knees...

... that might be a joke.

[dreamgazer]

TheMyron wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Why are you all replying?

This isn't about discussion or debate, it's about bad lines in teh saga....

We type them or we die!

Meh.  The BSN is just a machine, and machines can be broken!

BSN likes seeing people on their knees...

... that might be a joke.

Wait, the BSN can mate with their own race?!

[fr33stylez]

RangerSG wrote...
Exactly. This is why I've said the beginning would've been better if Mars and Earth 1 were reversed. It's a logical bridge from ME2. Liara asks for Shepard to come to the Archives, because she's found a device that can stop the Reapers. Whatever their relationship, that would get Shep's attention.

They could even still have the full Cerberus attack here, with TIM either betraying Shepard or gunning for revenge for blowing the Collector Base up. The Archives are no less valuable to Cerberus, after all.

After recovering the plans, it's clear that they will need more resources than a lone Spectre on a ship of no set allegiance could procure. The most obvious and immediate location to look for such aid would be Earth. Since Shepard would already know the Reapers were in Batarian space (Arrival done or not, they're there), immediacy is a priority. Especially since we know the Council will dither, and negotiate, and hem, and haw, and air-quote "Reapers" to Shepard. So going back to the Alliance would make sense.

And you get there just in time to watch Earth get scorched, just like the game does now.

Logical bridge from ME2 to ME3. One that keeps dramatic tension that the 6 month time jump loses, and one that keeps Shepard as an agent, rather than make a faux-dramatic trial sequence that contradicts established lore regarding Spectre authority and Alliance Chain of Command. 

Yes, a little thought into the bridge between ME1-ME2 and ME2-ME3 could've done wonders. I wonder if they waiting until the end to write the beginning of ME3.

[Thore2k10]

The whole "we found a giant reaper-off switch" plot, after they said that there defenitly wont be a reaper off switch. Was kind of a letdown, because i actually was looking forward to beating the reapers, the beings that were holding the whole plot together over the 3 games, in a original and well thought way. But it looks like Cerberus was more important, so they got their reaper-off switch and were through with that...

Pretty much the only scenes i really liked in me3 were the quarians homeworld and the krogan story... some other scenes were neat at best. imho the best scene in all three games still is the finale of the first game, followed by the finale of the second game.

[RangerSG]

Thore2k10 wrote...

The whole "we found a giant reaper-off switch" plot, after they said that there defenitly wont be a reaper off switch. Was kind of a letdown, because i actually was looking forward to beating the reapers, the beings that were holding the whole plot together over the 3 games, in a original and well thought way. But it looks like Cerberus was more important, so they got their reaper-off switch and were through with that...

Pretty much the only scenes i really liked in me3 were the quarians homeworld and the krogan story... some other scenes were neat at best. imho the best scene in all three games still is the finale of the first game, followed by the finale of the second game.

I wasn't a fan of Hopper-Saren in ME1 either, to be honest. Now everything from Ilos to that scene was impressive. And I thought outside of Kai Leng's ride on the shuttle during the coup, everything from when you land on Mars until the moment KL reappears on Thessia was at least good, and much of it well beyond that. Tuchanka, the Citadel Standoff, and Rannoch were all very well done. Even the run TO the Thessian Temple and Vendetta's reveal were solid. 

After KL returns, whelp...there's a reason I intersperse my DLC heavily from here on.

[TheMyron]

Shepard not simply asking the Catalyst, "where is the button to launch the weapon?" They didn't just build the Crucible without a "launch Destroy button", did they?

[Obadiah]

My vote for one of the worst scenes is the Rachni queen execution scene in ME1. Shepard acts like such a righteous blowhard when he releases the acid. I would have liked the option to execute the Rachni queen with some dignity, to ask from some last words or something.

Of course, I'd have also like an option to just turn the queen over to the council. I mean, if you release the queen into Noveria, what does that do? The queen is now stranded in the middle of a research facility in a frozen mountain tundra, and her only option to get off planet is to steal a ship - basically forcing her into criminal behavior (maybe there is a shuttle at Peak 15 she can use to get off planet).

Anyway it's a questionably written resolution to a situation that suddenly gets revealed at the end of the Noveria mission.

[Thore2k10]

RangerSG wrote...
I wasn't a fan of Hopper-Saren in ME1 either, to be honest. Now everything from Ilos to that scene was impressive. And I thought outside of Kai Leng's ride on the shuttle during the coup, everything from when you land on Mars until the moment KL reappears on Thessia was at least good, and much of it well beyond that. Tuchanka, the Citadel Standoff, and Rannoch were all very well done. Even the run TO the Thessian Temple and Vendetta's reveal were solid. 

After KL returns, whelp...there's a reason I intersperse my DLC heavily from here on.

Well yes, there were a lot of scenes that were good in my opinion. But its a bit like with Call of Duty, a lot of scenes with explosions and stuff, but the overarching plot was just lacking. Again the first game was the best imho. Beginning, middle and ending were all very good and the dramatic arc was on point! The second game was a collection of short stories, gathering all your allies. That was okay though, since it was the second game in a trilogy and i thought that was just preparations for things to come. Well it was in a way, like i said, the Quarian and Krogan Missions in ME3 belong to the best in all three games imho. But the overall outcome of those parts and almost everything happening in the first two games just reflectet itself in a abstract number, which was not enough! Not after all they told us before it was released.
Soooo, best scenes are the endings of the first 2 games and the worst scenes in my book are defenitly when Liara tells you about her finding the reaper off switch and everything considering the space kid.

[RangerSG]

Thore2k10 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
I wasn't a fan of Hopper-Saren in ME1 either, to be honest. Now everything from Ilos to that scene was impressive. And I thought outside of Kai Leng's ride on the shuttle during the coup, everything from when you land on Mars until the moment KL reappears on Thessia was at least good, and much of it well beyond that. Tuchanka, the Citadel Standoff, and Rannoch were all very well done. Even the run TO the Thessian Temple and Vendetta's reveal were solid. 

After KL returns, whelp...there's a reason I intersperse my DLC heavily from here on.

Well yes, there were a lot of scenes that were good in my opinion. But its a bit like with Call of Duty, a lot of scenes with explosions and stuff, but the overarching plot was just lacking. Again the first game was the best imho. Beginning, middle and ending were all very good and the dramatic arc was on point! The second game was a collection of short stories, gathering all your allies. That was okay though, since it was the second game in a trilogy and i thought that was just preparations for things to come. Well it was in a way, like i said, the Quarian and Krogan Missions in ME3 belong to the best in all three games imho. But the overall outcome of those parts and almost everything happening in the first two games just reflectet itself in a abstract number, which was not enough! Not after all they told us before it was released.
Soooo, best scenes are the endings of the first 2 games and the worst scenes in my book are defenitly when Liara tells you about her finding the reaper off switch and everything considering the space kid.

I don't mind the Crucible to defeat the Reapers. The issue is the diabolus ex machina at the end of it. Military sci-fi using superweapons is common enough, and if the ending had actually factored EMS in through a direct method (visible impact on battle) as opposed to the silliness of what color ending you get, it would've made sense. That is to say, almost exactly what MEHEM did. EMS too low? The crucible's too damaged to fire, and you lose. Put more resources into the final battle, and less into a new character springing from the box in the last 15mins.