1765 réponses à ce sujet

[justafan]

shodiswe wrote...

There is also this backup Geth fleet that only shows up if they decide to annihilate the Quarians after the upload.

They might not have been conected when the Reapers took over.

I don't recall a backup fleet.  If I recall the scene correctly, it is the same fleet in both Geth and Quarian victory, just in different states of organization and disrepair (also recall that the Geth try to flee in a Quarian victory, so that might account for any numbers difference in the cutscene).  And any fleet that close to Rannoch was likely under reaper control anyways, remember, all consensus connected runtimes without the free will of legion (re: all of them) agreed to accept the reapers, and there was no going back after that.

Edit: after a quick youtube search, there are indeed more Geth ships in the cutscene when they destroy the Quarians, however, I would chalk that up to the fact that the Geth try to retreat when they realize the reaper presence is gone, and thus the battle hopelessly lost.

Modifié par justafan, 24 février 2014 - 12:34 .

[darthoptimus003]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

how bout Ashley/Kaiden being made specters
why thay haven't done anything that would give them that status
and Ashley being a complete b the entire time made me cap her on my second play through even when I hooked up with her
sorry but the vs totally got completely stupid since horizon in ME2 questioning every thing I said or did/didn't do
come to think of it every part with the VS is completely bad

quoted myself to add liara
she acted like her world was the only world in flames and she was in total denile that her people were not up front about everything and didn't do anything wrong
they knew the reapers where coming and did nothing and making laws that everyone else in the galaxy had to abide by but not them
she totally pissed me off in the thessia mission cause of her inseive whining wished I could of caped her after she got all up in javiks face

[congokong]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

how bout Ashley/Kaiden being made specters
why thay haven't done anything that would give them that status
and Ashley being a complete b the entire time made me cap her on my second play through even when I hooked up with her
sorry but the vs totally got completely stupid since horizon in ME2 questioning every thing I said or did/didn't do
come to think of it every part with the VS is completely bad

I've thought about that. Ashley's greatest achievement was tagging along with Shepard in ME1. Kaidan has a near spotless record and receives promotions that Commander Shepard for some reason never got. However, he's a 1-dimensional nice guy that acts like a Disney character and I can't even believe is in the military; let alone a spectre. Spectres are supposed to be the types who make the hard calls and are willing to do the dirty jobs. That fits the ruthless Shepard playstyle. I actually have a hard time understanding based on this how a pure paragon Shepard gets nominated as a spectre as well.

Ex: Zaeed's loyalty mission scenario. By reputation a spectre would let a few workers burn to death to get the job done by stopping a monster like Vido Santiago for the greater good. I cannot ever picture Kaidan focusing on the big picture and letting people die like that.

Modifié par congokong, 24 février 2014 - 01:33 .

[congokong]

Bad King wrote...
He turned against Shepard because humanity's reputation was on the line and Shepard was too dumb to actually collect any evidence that the reapers were real - he even has the audacity to ask the council to take what he says on faith. It's insane that some players ignore all the support that Udina offers Shepard throughout the game just because he turned on him (the rational thing to do in his situation) right at the end. We only see the military conflict of ME1 (Shepard's viewpoint), but Udina was fighting a very different battle - one of a political nature - to improve humanity's standing in the galactic community and to foil Saren's plots.

Grounding the Normandy was a stupid move because if Shepard was right, proof or no proof, they were screwed. The objection to letting just the SR1 go after Saren discreetly was "You detonated a nuclear device on Virmire. I wouldn't call that discreet." That rebuttal makes no sense.

I concede early in the game Shepard was far too certain Saren was a traitor without ever even seeing him on Eden Prime and shortly after was far too certain about the reapers existence based on a vision and audio log mentioning them. I shook my head at that. But by the end of the game they council could've given Shepard the benefit of the doubt and let the SR1 do its thing.

Udina did several things to get him on the hate list. No congrats for Shepard becoming a spectre, whining about political implications for everything Shepard did, grounding the Normandy when it was needed most, ****ing that Shepard was alive again in ME2, and refusing reinstatement of Shepard's spectre status if you were stupid enough to pick him as councilor.

Modifié par congokong, 24 février 2014 - 01:46 .

[Xilizhra]

I actually have a hard time understanding based on this how a pure paragon Shepard gets nominated as a spectre as well.

Er, the service record? Also exposing a plot to overturn the galaxy as we know it.

Ex: Zaeed's loyalty mission scenario. By reputation a spectre would let a few workers burn to death to get the job done by stopping a monster like Vido Santiago for the greater good. I cannot ever picture Kaidan focusing on the big picture and letting people die like that.

That may be the reputation, because scarily dramatic things get more press than quiet, diplomatic ones. The diplomatic, Paragon Spectres leave fewer bodies in their wake and thus get less reputation. Shepard being the exception because there's so much opportunity for dramatic heroism there.

Also, the Blue Suns are already being run publicly by that one batarian guy, and the changeover would be seamless; Vido Santiago's death wouldn't noticeably impact the Blue Suns, in all likelihood.

[von uber]

Ash / kaidans appointments always struck me as political.
Although you can't really judge how good they are to be a spectre because shep is an aberration. Vasir who is a fellow spectre acknowledges her being so by (slightly ironically) asking for an autograph.

Me3 needed more people like vasir (shame she dies). And aria.

[themikefest]

The one thing that bothered me about facing Ashley/Kaidan when she/he has their gun pointed at Shepard is the two squadmates don't speak up when Udina shows Ashley/Kaidan Shepard "allegedly" shooting the Salarian councillor.

Modifié par themikefest, 24 février 2014 - 02:39 .

[Bad King]

congokong wrote...

Bad King wrote...
He turned against Shepard because humanity's reputation was on the line and Shepard was too dumb to actually collect any evidence that the reapers were real - he even has the audacity to ask the council to take what he says on faith. It's insane that some players ignore all the support that Udina offers Shepard throughout the game just because he turned on him (the rational thing to do in his situation) right at the end. We only see the military conflict of ME1 (Shepard's viewpoint), but Udina was fighting a very different battle - one of a political nature - to improve humanity's standing in the galactic community and to foil Saren's plots.

Grounding the Normandy was a stupid move because if Shepard was right, proof or no proof, they were screwed. The objection to letting just the SR1 go after Saren discreetly was "You detonated a nuclear device on Virmire. I wouldn't call that discreet." That rebuttal makes no sense.

I concede early in the game Shepard was far too certain Saren was a traitor without ever even seeing him on Eden Prime and shortly after was far too certain about the reapers existence based on a vision and audio log mentioning them. I shook my head at that. But by the end of the game they council could've given Shepard the benefit of the doubt and let the SR1 do its thing.

Udina did several things to get him on the hate list. No congrats for Shepard becoming a spectre, whining about political implications for everything Shepard did, grounding the Normandy when it was needed most, ****ing that Shepard was alive again in ME2, and refusing reinstatement of Shepard's spectre status if you were stupid enough to pick him as councilor.

The council were completely against Shepard travelling to Ilos, so Udina was in a pretty bad situation - does he (as humanity's representative on the Citadel no less) allow Shepard (who completely lacks concrete evidence that the reapers are real) to go free and invoke the wrath of the council (not just on him and the human politicians but on humanity as a whole) or does he ground the Normandy and keep humanity in the Council's good books? The latter seems like the rational option to me.

As for your other issues, most of them are with his abrasive personality - he was the one who pushed for Shepard becoming a spectre and he was the one who rooted for Shepard on the Citadel in ME1 - who cares if he hurts your player's feelings a little if he's getting things done? As for his acts in ME2, I also view them as justifiable to a degree - if you let the council die in ME1, the alien councillors are somewhat anti-humanity and Shepard was working for Cerberus. If Udina had given Shepard his blessings at that time, it would have been a slap in the face to the other council races and may have jeopardised the relations between humans and the other council races. If you picked him and saved the council, when the council are stonewalling Shepard, Anderson himself declares that Udina wouldn't stand for this (he clearly has faith in Udina at this time) and if the meeting goes well, Udina, though unhappy he wasn't consulted, admits that the meeting was a good thing.

Yes, Udina wasn't a friendly chap, but he was a good man at heart who cared about humanity and its relationship with the other races. ME3 did well with him at the start of the game but completely ruined him later on just to appease the haters.

[General TSAR]

The most poorly written scene was Udina's betrayal.

It was so on the nose and so incredibly stupid.

[Argentoid]

ME3's prologue and ending

ME1's Benezia confrontation

ME2's prologue

Modifié par Argentoid, 24 février 2014 - 03:00 .

[_aLucidMind_]

To name one that others didn't mention, I feel the whole Kaiden/Ashley being injured on Mars and Shepard being so worried to be poorly written. I feel it should have been the love interest, ME2 ones included. Actually, there's a lot of scenes I would have changed or included that I know most fans would have liked better than most of what we got in ME3 (excluding the endings, because most can do better in that regard).

[congokong]

Xilizhra wrote...

I actually have a hard time understanding based on this how a pure paragon Shepard gets nominated as a spectre as well.

Er, the service record? Also exposing a plot to overturn the galaxy as we know it.

But if they're not capable of making the hard calls they won't be as useful. In real life paragon doesn't equal instant-win.

Ex: Zaeed's loyalty mission scenario. By reputation a spectre would let a few workers burn to death to get the job done by stopping a monster like Vido Santiago for the greater good. I cannot ever picture Kaidan focusing on the big picture and letting people die like that.

That may be the reputation, because scarily dramatic things get more press than quiet, diplomatic ones. The diplomatic, Paragon Spectres leave fewer bodies in their wake and thus get less reputation. Shepard being the exception because there's so much opportunity for dramatic heroism there.

Also, the Blue Suns are already being run publicly by that one batarian guy, and the changeover would be seamless; Vido Santiago's death wouldn't noticeably impact the Blue Suns, in all likelihood.

I didn't bring up the Zaeed example to start a debate on what path to take in that mission so I'm not biting.

[congokong]

Bad King wrote...
The council were completely against Shepard travelling to Ilos, so Udina was in a pretty bad situation - does he (as humanity's representative on the Citadel no less) allow Shepard (who completely lacks concrete evidence that the reapers are real) to go free and invoke the wrath of the council (not just on him and the human politicians but on humanity as a whole) or does he ground the Normandy and keep humanity in the Council's good books? The latter seems like the rational option to me.

As for your other issues, most of them are with his abrasive personality - he was the one who pushed for Shepard becoming a spectre and he was the one who rooted for Shepard on the Citadel in ME1 - who cares if he hurts your player's feelings a little if he's getting things done? As for his acts in ME2, I also view them as justifiable to a degree - if you let the council die in ME1, the alien councillors are somewhat anti-humanity and Shepard was working for Cerberus. If Udina had given Shepard his blessings at that time, it would have been a slap in the face to the other council races and may have jeopardised the relations between humans and the other council races. If you picked him and saved the council, when the council are stonewalling Shepard, Anderson himself declares that Udina wouldn't stand for this (he clearly has faith in Udina at this time) and if the meeting goes well, Udina, though unhappy he wasn't consulted, admits that the meeting was a good thing.

Yes, Udina wasn't a friendly chap, but he was a good man at heart who cared about humanity and its relationship with the other races. ME3 did well with him at the start of the game but completely ruined him later on just to appease the haters.

Udina isn't much different from Hackett in a way. They'll both betray Shepard because of politics. I don't think compromising the galaxy in ME1 by siding with the council and grounding the Normandy is very wise but whatever. You make Udina sound like an alien boot-licker and from what you've said he probably is. I can't argue with you much here. Whether that's right is subjective. Since I know Shepard's right it makes you as the role-player kind of loathe Udina for getting in Shepard's way.

Udina didn't defend my canon Shepard's spectre candidacy (she was colonist/ruthless). Both Hackett and Udina spoke against it. Only Anderson vouched for her and Udina conceded that he'd "make the call."

[congokong]

themikefest wrote...

The one thing that bothered me about facing Ashley/Kaidan when she/he has their gun pointed at Shepard is the two squadmates don't speak up when Udina shows Ashley/Kaidan Shepard "allegedly" shooting the Salarian councillor.

What bothered me more about that is how Udina and/or Cerberus had time to fabricate something like that and failed to mention it to the others until Shepard reached them. But yes, I also wondered why my squadmates never bothered vouching for Shepard. Whatever. It just made it easier to kill Ashley.

[Xilizhra]

But if they're not capable of making the hard calls they won't be as useful. In real life paragon doesn't equal instant-win.

Which is why even the most Paragon of Shepards will still shoot a lot of people, still abandon someone to die on Virmire, and still allow Aratoht to be destroyed. Paragon Shepard is perfectly capable of making uncomfortable decisions when necessary.

[congokong]

Xilizhra wrote...

But if they're not capable of making the hard calls they won't be as useful. In real life paragon doesn't equal instant-win.

Which is why even the most Paragon of Shepards will still shoot a lot of people, still abandon someone to die on Virmire, and still allow Aratoht to be destroyed. Paragon Shepard is perfectly capable of making uncomfortable decisions when necessary.

Those aren't true "hard calls." In Virmire there was no choice but to leave one behind so the only call to be made was which to choose. Hard calls are where you have a realistic choice but make sacrifices because you know it's too risky and/or when the right choice isn't the easy one. I agree Aratoht was pretty renegade. The game didn't leave you any alternatives so we're conditioned to believe it was right. But in the ME universe the paragon can have their cake and eat it too in most cases. They can spare the rachni queen, divert vital reinforcements to save the council, rewrite the heretics, destroy the collector base, etc. An idealistic decision can't screw you over because it would mean "game over" and therefore wouldn't be a decision at all.

[DeinonSlayer]

congokong wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But if they're not capable of making the hard calls they won't be as useful. In real life paragon doesn't equal instant-win.

Which is why even the most Paragon of Shepards will still shoot a lot of people, still abandon someone to die on Virmire, and still allow Aratoht to be destroyed. Paragon Shepard is perfectly capable of making uncomfortable decisions when necessary.

Those aren't true "hard calls." In Virmire there was no choice but to leave one behind so the only call to be made was which to choose. Hard calls are where you have a realistic choice but make sacrifices because you know it's too risky and/or when the right choice isn't the easy one. I agree Aratoht was pretty renegade. The game didn't leave you any alternatives so we're conditioned to believe it was right. But in the ME universe the paragon can have their cake and eat it too in most cases. They can spare the rachni queen, divert vital reinforcements to save the council, rewrite the heretics, destroy the collector base, etc. An idealistic decision can't screw you over because it would mean "game over" and therefore wouldn't be a decision at all.

An example would be Balak obliterating a colony at some point in the two years Shepard was dead because Shepard wasn't willing to pay the price to capture him the last time he tried. Now, in ME3, he's passing his time by remotely shutting off life support machines and causing ships to crash if you let him walk in BDtS, but these acts of terrorism (like the assassinations committed by Rana Thanoptis) are conveniently not reflected in your war assets. Likewise, if you don't kill Vido in ME2, he is conveniently killed off-screen instead of, say, attacking you or someone on your squad in retaliation for trying and failing to kill him.

All of this comes together to condition players to thoughtlessly mash whatever happens to be at the top of the wheel, safe in the knowledge that it will not come back to bite them.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 24 février 2014 - 05:34 .

[congokong]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

congokong wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But if they're not capable of making the hard calls they won't be as useful. In real life paragon doesn't equal instant-win.

Which is why even the most Paragon of Shepards will still shoot a lot of people, still abandon someone to die on Virmire, and still allow Aratoht to be destroyed. Paragon Shepard is perfectly capable of making uncomfortable decisions when necessary.

Those aren't true "hard calls." In Virmire there was no choice but to leave one behind so the only call to be made was which to choose. Hard calls are where you have a realistic choice but make sacrifices because you know it's too risky and/or when the right choice isn't the easy one. I agree Aratoht was pretty renegade. The game didn't leave you any alternatives so we're conditioned to believe it was right. But in the ME universe the paragon can have their cake and eat it too in most cases. They can spare the rachni queen, divert vital reinforcements to save the council, rewrite the heretics, destroy the collector base, etc. An idealistic decision can't screw you over because it would mean "game over" and therefore wouldn't be a decision at all.

An example would be Balak obliterating a colony at some point in the two years Shepard was dead because Shepard wasn't willing to pay the price to capture him the last time he tried. Now, in ME3, he's passing his time by remotely shutting off life support machines and causing ships to crash if you let him walk in BDtS, but these acts of terrorism (like the assassinations committed by Rana Thanoptis) are conveniently not reflected in your war assets. Likewise, if you don't kill Vido in ME2, he is conveniently killed off-screen instead of, say, attacking you or someone on your squad in retaliation for trying and failing to kill him.

All of this comes together to condition players to thoughtlessly mash whatever happens to be at the top of the wheel, safe in the knowledge that it will not come back to bite them.

I agree completely. I've mentioned on these boards how the most obvious paragon punishment was an e-mail about Ranos Thanoptis killing some asari which does nothing to your assets (which mean very little anyway). Some paragon options are sooo stupid to me but they never screw you over. You save the rachni queen twice and let it get near the crucible?! If it was indoctrinated even a little it could compromise the entire project. Not to mention Arlakh company was sacrificed to save it. Ugh.

[DeinonSlayer]

@congokong
Yeah. According to the queen, the Reapers "heard her song." They were able to hone in on her location while she was underground on a backwater ball of dirt, and had her wired directly into their tech for an unspecified amount of time churning out ravagers. My canon Shepard isn't willing to take the risk. But sending her to the Crucible, after she blatantly tells us that the Reapers can track her location?

Hackett is a moron. I'd say the same of a non-metagaming Shepard who trusted Legion's Reaper code.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 24 février 2014 - 06:35 .

[AlanC9]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@congokong
Yeah. According to the queen, the Reapers "heard her song." They were able to hone in on her location while she was underground on a backwater ball of dirt, and had her wired directly into their tech for an unspecified amount of time churning out ravagers. My canon Shepard isn't willing to take the risk. But sending her to the Crucible, after she blatantly tells us that the Reapers can track her location?

Hackett is a moron.

Did they send her to the Crucible , or just the kids? But yeah, still quite the risk.

[Invisible Man]

AlanC9 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@congokong
Yeah. According to the queen, the Reapers "heard her song." They were able to hone in on her location while she was underground on a backwater ball of dirt, and had her wired directly into their tech for an unspecified amount of time churning out ravagers. My canon Shepard isn't willing to take the risk. But sending her to the Crucible, after she blatantly tells us that the Reapers can track her location?

Hackett is a moron.

Did they send her to the Crucible , or just the kids? But yeah, still quite the risk.

I think it was just her kids, I think they would have said so if the queen was there.

[DeinonSlayer]

@AlanC9
They sent her to the Crucible IIRC. If you have the breeder in her place, then towards the end of the game you get an email announcing her betrayal and the Alliance Engineering Corps WA loses two hundred points. Interestingly, saving the real queen is at the top of the wheel; as is abandoning the fake one. They flipped the wheel to ensure the "best" outcome was always on top.

EDIT: Disregard. The war asset description refers to "workers dispatched to the project," no word on where the queen herself goes (beyond the EC slide showing a post-Krogan Tuchanka).

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 24 février 2014 - 06:44 .

[Bob from Accounting]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

They flipped the wheel to ensure the "best" outcome was always on top.

That they did.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 24 février 2014 - 06:44 .

[Invisible Man]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@AlanC9
They sent her to the Crucible IIRC. If you have the breeder in her place, then towards the end of the game you get an email announcing her betrayal and the Alliance Engineering Corps WA loses two hundred points. Interestingly, saving the real queen is at the top of the wheel; as is abandoning the fake one. They flipped the wheel to ensure the "best" outcome was always on top.

EDIT: Disregard. The war asset description refers to "workers dispatched to the project," no word on where the queen herself goes (beyond the EC slide showing a post-Krogan Tuchanka).

funny, if I killed the first one it's a renegade action (I think, right?), then if I killed the clone queen it's now a paragon action? if I killed the original one I'm fairly sure I'd kill the second one too. I don't think I've ever killed the original queen and saved the clone, out of something like 16 playthroughs in total (in each game I do two playthroughs with each character I make)

Modifié par Invisible Man, 24 février 2014 - 07:28 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

They flipped the wheel to ensure the "best" outcome was always on top.

That they did.

Because stupid is good, apparently, and should be rewarded.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 24 février 2014 - 07:57 .