946 réponses à ce sujet

[Derpy]

Can I just launch a bunch of Threser Maws at him?

[Derpy]

I wish Shepard didn't die so I could inflict my wrath on the Geth and Quarians.

[DeinonSlayer]

I wish Shepard didn't die so I could inflict my wrath on the Geth and Quarians.

You can side with the Geth and pick Destroy if you want to exterminate them both.

[Derpy]

Oh yeah kinda like what I did in FalloutNV. Nuked everyone.

[CronoDragoon]

I think you're right, Crono. If I remember right, in that Weekes interview where he called the Quarians racists, he said they wanted to have that choice, and to justify the option to side with the Geth they needed to give cause to sympathize with them. Problem being, they slathered it on too thick, effectively whitewashing their past actions and never intelligently articulated the other side. I knew where they were going with the arc the second I heard Xen offer that softball rationale for invasion in ME3 compared to Gerrel's stronger argument in ME2. Goes back to what I said about the Genophage earlier.

 

About the Dalatrass being a villain-ization of a logical, reasonable view (krogans will multiply and starts wars again if cured)? Yeah except in this case the situation has swung to the opposite extreme. While Rannoch is a fabrication of a dubious conflict, the genophage arc under-represents what is an actual, real, consequence-bearing conflict of interest.

 

Both extremes have the same result though: characters become caricatures.

 

...Still love Rannoch and Tuchanka though.

[jtav]

Does anyone else think Tuchanka and Rannoch play better with Wreav/Geth VI? Less one-sided and less guilt-trippy?

[DeinonSlayer]

About the Dalatrass being a villain-ization of a logical, reasonable view (krogans will multiply and starts wars again if cured)? Yeah except in this case the situation has swung to the opposite extreme. While Rannoch is a fabrication of a dubious conflict, the genophage arc under-represents what is an actual, real, consequence-bearing conflict of interest.
 
Both extremes have the same result though: characters become caricatures.
 
...Still love Rannoch and Tuchanka though.

Could've been balanced out by simply giving players the opportunity to phone Gerrel after the dreadnaught mission and ask him some of these things. Why did you invade, what alternatives (if any) did you have? Why not negotiate (mention extermination/isolationism/heretics/whatever)? Why not seek Council help (insert "Where was Gondor when..." spiel here)? Why do you need Rannoch? Let him answer these things. Put it out there and let people apply their own judgement.

I ought to write how that could have gone... wouldn't have been big, but would have established balance.

[von uber]

Absolutely, with those two, all sides of each arc, are equally portrayed as assholes.

 

Well, maybe not equally, but it's something.

 

Well maybe, given that ME3 'is the best place to start', and thus Wrex and Legion are dead, it plays out better that way due to that. It's our fault for playing the Trilogy.

[jtav]

Well having Wrex and Legion is supposed to be rewarding but the emotional manipulation is too obvious and neither arc presents much of a dilemma if optimal conditions are met.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, but then I have the dilemma of metagame-killing characters I like to replace them with those that I dislike.

[CronoDragoon]

Wrex is my bro. Bros before galaxies.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

The Council in ME weren't really so bad, players just got pissed at them for not going to war with the Terminus and the Batarians over an unconfirmed, possibly hallucinogenic vision. In ME2, the Council is justifiably skeptical that Shepard is trust worthy and reliable, seeing as she died and is working with terrorists. 

 

I still thought they were pretty bad. I can understand why they would be skeptical of Shepard's visions, maybe even consider him untrustworthy in ME2 due to the events surrounding his resurrection and a temporary alliance with Cerberus, but they seemed to admit at the end of ME1 that they believed Shepard about the Reapers (after they were attacked by one). Even if they were in denial about the existence of the Reapers, shouldn't they still take any threat seriously, as crazy as it may sound, and at least attempt to prepare themselves to defend against an attack? 

 

Maybe Shepard should have made a better argument, insisted that they really shouldn't take a chance like that when so many lives are at stake, or something. Because what happens if Shepard is right, the threat is real, and they just ignored it? The fact that they would do this is so strange to me. 

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Wrex is my bro. Bros before galaxies.

 

Sounds like the way a few of my Shepards make decisions.  I think they're more loyal to specific people than causes. 

[CronoDragoon]

 Even if they were in denial about the existence of the Reapers, shouldn't they still take any threat seriously, as crazy as it may sound, and at least attempt to prepare themselves to defend against an attack? 

 

Retcon or not Citadel DLC reveals the Council always believed the Reapers were real after ME1, they just didn't publically confirm it.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Retcon or not Citadel DLC reveals the Council always believed the Reapers were real after ME1, they just didn't publically confirm it.

 

Thanks for the info, I haven't read up much on the details of the Citadel DLC. I thought it might be something like that, but even so, they handled it badly. 

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

I still thought they were pretty bad. I can understand why they would be skeptical of Shepard's visions, maybe even consider him untrustworthy in ME2 due to the events surrounding his resurrection and a temporary alliance with Cerberus, but they seemed to admit at the end of ME1 that they believed Shepard about the Reapers (after they were attacked by one). Even if they were in denial about the existence of the Reapers, shouldn't they still take any threat seriously, as crazy as it may sound, and at least attempt to prepare themselves to defend against an attack? 

 

Maybe Shepard should have made a better argument, insisted that they really shouldn't take a chance like that when so many lives are at stake, or something. Because what happens if Shepard is right, the threat is real, and they just ignored it? The fact that they would do this is so strange to me. 

Then again, what could they really do? Announcing that a fleet of Sovereigns is coming to kill everyone is only going to hurt the galaxies chances by causing mass panic.

They did make humanity a council race, allowing them to ramp up dreadnought and military production, and IIRC, they did some other stuff as well. They hedged their bets. Besides, there were only two and a half years between the battle of the Citadel and the main invasion. There's not much they could've done. 

[SporkFu]

I think it all could have been handled better if, no matter what they had to say and do publicly, the Council privately acknowledged the reaper threat to shep and agreed to stay out of his way if they couldn't help. Would have made more sense than, "ah yes, reapers..."

[CronoDragoon]

Thanks for the info, I haven't read up much on the details of the Citadel DLC. I thought it might be something like that, but even so, they handled it badly. 

 

Basically the public video comes up as identifying the geth ship that attacked the Citadel, then the console recognizes Shep's Spectre status and the vid switches to a diagram of Sovereign, classified as a Reaper (this takes place in the Council archives). I agree they could have handled it better.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Could've been balanced out by simply giving players the opportunity to phone Gerrel after the dreadnaught mission and ask him some of these things. Why did you invade, what alternatives (if any) did you have? Why not negotiate (mention extermination/isolationism/heretics/whatever)? Why not seek Council help (insert "Where was Gondor when..." spiel here)? Why do you need Rannoch? Let him answer these things. Put it out there and let people apply their own judgement.

I ought to write how that could have gone... wouldn't have been big, but would have established balance.

 

I thought the best thing they could do was make the Geth consensus mission not so biased. Like maybe have a scene where the Geth knock down a door and gun down a Quarian family or have a Quarian communication that mentions a city was just bombed by some sort of chemical agent. Then have Shepard have a Q&A with the Geth representative who expresses either the logical reason behind those events and/or possibly express some form of remorse (in the case of Legion).

[DeinonSlayer]

I thought the best thing they could do was make the Geth consensus mission not so biased. Like maybe have a scene where the Geth knock down a door and gun down a Quarian family or have a Quarian communication that mentions a city was just bombed by some sort of chemical agent. Then have Shepard have a Q&A with the Geth representative who expresses either the logical reason behind those events and/or possibly express some form of remorse (in the case of Legion).

Better than watching AutoShep eat up a third-grade propaganda slideshow with a spoon.

[Derpy]

I wish there was a 3rd choice in the Geth arc were you could let the Geth and Quarians exterminate themselves and thus not get blamed for destroying a whole race.