Lusia is the largest asari colony, it has a population of 2,2 billion.
Aha - that's me informed. But even still, that only brings them roughly up to parity with humans. I don't know, I would just expect them all to be much more numerous than humanity.
Aha - that's me informed. But even still, that only brings them roughly up to parity with humans. I don't know, I would just expect them all to be much more numerous than humanity.
It's only parity if the number of major asari colonies is relatively small.
Note that we have an upper bound for the number of human colonies, but we don't have one for the asari AFAIK. Per the Earth Codex entry "(t)he resource wealth of a dozen settled colonies and a hundred industrial outposts flows back to Earth."
That is a VI not an AI.
It'd still serve the same function. Just tell us what the crucible does, and that's it. No hidden agendas.
Human expansion is more limited than other species. They may have larger populations than we do (there's a crapload of Batarians in the Terminus Systems, before and after the Reaper invasion) but they are scattered about in a multitude of colonies. There's nowhere near as many colonies for humans, resulting in a much denser population. Since we go almost exclusively to human-dominated areas, I don't think that this should be very surprising.
What I primarily dislike is the fact that the Terminus Systems are supposed to be powerful enough to give the Citadel Races a run for their money. The Citadel is supposed to be a glimmering jewel of Galactic civilization and yet it sort of isn't, because all these things about military supremacy are informed, not proven.
Terminus Systems are only considered a threat if they entirely unite. Citadel just doesn't want to poke the hive. They don't want to poke the hive, because they've done similar enough things before (Rachni, Krogan) and could be considered to have barely made it through that.
The Citadel is the most advanced station and at least in ways, it is the most advanced location in the known galaxy. That doesn't mean it'd survive if a whole sector of the galaxy suddenly popped through and attacked it. Control over the galaxy always has its limits, especially considering the Mass Relay system (unblocked ones are limited to single % of the galaxy, with most of it unexplored and perhaps with other things going on).
It'd still serve the same function. Just tell us what the crucible does, and that's it. No hidden agendas.
What I primarily dislike is the fact that the Terminus Systems are supposed to be powerful enough to give the Citadel Races a run for their money. The Citadel is supposed to be a glimmering jewel of Galactic civilization and yet it sort of isn't, because all these things about military supremacy are informed, not proven.
I think Bioware's idea of the Terminus systems from ME1 was simply completely different than what we got in ME2 and ME3. In ME1, it was described as a rather loose coalition of unseen species united in not wanting to bow to council authority, posing a serious threat to the citadel races. In ME2/3, we have an asari on top with some merc groups all helmed by races we're familiar with...
For me, there s not one particular sentence where "it falls apart". ME is weird in that - beginning with ME2 - the series becomes very inconsistent in it's plot quality. While smaller arcs and character interactions are great until the end, the series does continue to throw monkey wrenches into the plot wheel at regular intervals. I mean, it's not like the ending disaster is based only on the last 20 minutes. ME2's stubborn refusal to develop the main plotline of the reapers, the treatment of the Crucible throughout ME3, the "development" of Cerberus over the course of the trilogy, all of these points as well as many others contributed to a situation where a truly satisfying ending, that would really tie up the story was pretty much out of the question.
The weird thing is that in between all of these unfathomable decisions, the writers did a really good job of keeping us on the edge of our seats and bringing great characters to life. I believe that this weird combination of the good and the bad is what ultimately spawned the ending controversy. Without the good parts, people would probably never have cared enough to give a dam in the end. Without the latter, we'd be happily celebrating the awesomeness of the series (which a lot of people do).
So no, I can't name the one sentence where it fell apart, IMO, the reasons were distributed over the course of ME2 and 3.
What "hidden agendas"?
He's referring to the fact that because the Catalyst is sentient and because of its choice of words it has a bias/agenda towards synthesis and effectively made most players pick that on their first run through.
If it was a VI instead it would simply be expository and let us form our own opinion... no "now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable we will reach synthesis"
He's referring to the fact that because the Catalyst is sentient and because of its choice of words it has a bias/agenda towards synthesis and effectively made most players pick that on their first run through.
If it was a VI instead it would simply be expository and let us form our own opinion... no "now that we know it is possible, it is inevitable we will reach synthesis"
The Catalyst works fine from a ME3 being a standalone game point of view. And as ME3 is the best place to start...
Yeah. I am pretty sure if I hadn't played ME1 and 2 from the day they were released, over and over, and ME3 had been a stand alone game with a different lead, I still wouldn't have loved it, but there wouldn't be the hate in my heart and soul for what it wasn't, and could have been.
Nah. My friend played ME3 because he bought into the massive hype and marketing by EA thinking it was a badass dudebro type of shooter. He ended up getting quite invested in the story, and I had warned him that I thought the ending sucked and that ME1 and ME2 were much better games but even so he texted me as he was going through the ending and I remember just getting this text saying "F%&# what the **** was that ending!?" and then an hour later he texted me saying he was frustrated and still couldn't sleep after getting such an unfulfilling ending.
I think there are just as many newcomers who hate the ending as there are newcomers who felt indifferent or liked it.
Have you thought that maybe he would've liked (or at least not dislike it as much) if you hadn't warned him?
Yes, but he doesn't dislike it for the same reasons I do. I told him I thought the Catalyst was hokie but it was the 3 choices I disliked and he just disliked everything after anderson's death and didn't care for anything after that.
Yes, but he doesn't dislike it for the same reasons I do. I told him I thought the Catalyst was hokie but it was the 3 choices I disliked and he just disliked everything after anderson's death and didn't care for anything after that.
One of my friends is like that. A big "NOPE" and immediate hatred of Bioware, outright. He did eventually get all the DLC (so his hatred doesn't count for much in the end? I guess?), but he considers Mass Effect forever tarnished.
It's in the past yeah? It was back in March 2012 when I was in high-school, gaming was a very secondary thing and I was hyping up Mass Effect 3 about as much as some of my peers except I was a fan. I heard "WTF IS THAT ENDING" before I even got it myself and I assumed "they're probably too stupid to get what the ending meant" until I reached it myself and I could easily see why people were pissed off. It was already widely known that the game had an unsatisfying ending by the time me and my friend went through it. All I did was confirm to him "yeah, those people were right, the ending kinda sucks"
So would I have never heard about how "terrible!" the ending was then I know with certainty I wouldn't have gone on massive rants or internet hate-train but I wouldn've been disappointed and my friend would've felt his apathy towards the entire franchise regardless.
I'm not kidding. He hates the IP now, ever since he saw the ending. If I would mention Mass Effect to him the first thing he brings up is omething like those 2 ladies by the door scanner which he thinks "is the worst thing I've ever seen on my PS3" and silly stuff like that. He just has completely dislike and apathy towards it because the ending controversy blew out of proportion, popular memes and he's the kind of guy who just wants games to be all rule of cool... and he also happens to think Far Cry 3 is one of the greatest games ever made... so god help him lol.
I just wanna steer clear: I have probably worsened his overall perception of Mass Effect but despite my dislike towards the ending I defended the IP every time he talked **** about it about how amazing I thought 1 and 2 were and I tried to make him play them but nope. The ending just has that effect on some people. They will stop caring about the franchise entirely.
I think it's kinda funny that he still hates so much on this ending, but that shows me that he somewhat cares, or at least still feels something about it, so the writers still have achieved something. Dividing people about certain things is an interesting thing in writing.
For me personally, I realise I'm really invested in something if I can't stop thinking about it. And the ending did that to me. But in a good way because I really liked it.
In the end maybe it doesn't matter so much if people were told the ending sucks beforehand (I read that the ending sucks long before playing ME3 actually), but if it's simply your taste. You either like it or you don't. If you go in with a biased opinion that you probably will dislike it because everyone else does, you could still end up liking it if it is developing towards your taste.
Here's a thought....Something to think about for all endings.
Why did the reapers move the citadel to earth controlled space? The reapers could surely have protected the citadel quite nicely where it was. What purpose would there be to move the citadel to earth controlled space, unless to harvest humanity?
What if though they didn't have enough power to do this in the citadel alone? So create a device so simple that any species can build it, leave clues to it being a reaper killer, convince the races to bring it to the citadel and.... voila. Enough power to finish the reaper.
The fact that everyone seems to fall for this reaper killer weapon scenario tells me that's when they all got hit by the stupid bat. Everything after the attack on earth at the beginning of ME3 is just bonkers.
Here's a thought....Something to think about for all endings.
Why did the reapers move the citadel to earth controlled space? The reapers could surely have protected the citadel quite nicely where it was. What purpose would there be to move the citadel to earth controlled space, unless to harvest humanity?
What if though they didn't have enough power to do this in the citadel alone? So create a device so simple that any species can build it, leave clues to it being a reaper killer, convince the races to bring it to the citadel and.... voila. Enough power to finish the reaper.
The fact that everyone seems to fall for this reaper killer weapon scenario tells me that's when they all got hit by the stupid bat. Everything after the attack on earth at the beginning of ME3 is just bonkers.
Because the catch-phrase was "Take Back Earth"
The Reapers are very meta 
Thessia, for example, has half (5.5 compared to 11) of the population of Earth; Palaven has 6.1. They would have to have massive colonies to compensate - the largest Asari colony I found was 677million, with the next 250.
It just doesn't strike me as likely that humanity would be as populous as the other races who are not largely fixed to one planet.
I liked that Earth seemed crowded compared to some of the other home worlds. I don't know if that was intentional on the part of the devs, but I think the less densely populated home worlds for some of the alien species made sense considering they were space faring for much longer. They've had longer to shed excess population and solve issues of overcrowding through colonization.
I liked that Earth seemed crowded compared to some of the other home worlds. I don't know if that was intentional on the part of the devs, but I think the less densely populated home worlds for some of the alien species made sense considering they were space faring for much longer. They've had longer to shed excess population and solve issues of overcrowding through colonization.
I always assumed Earth's overcrowded-ness was due to Humanity being a relatively new colonization race and thus we as a race hadn't had time to spread out enough to where Earth would see a noticeable decrease in population.
That as well as the fact that we are so 'diverse' compared to other races and thus we are not as easy to agree with one another. Thus, humanity hadn't been able to come to consensus on how to solve problems of things like poverty like other races have and thus more people are 'stranded' on Earth due to their financial situations than Asari, Salarian, and Turians on their homeworlds.
So yeah, I agree with you
They should've addressed why Earth was being the main focus a bit more directly IMO, like explain that Earth is being hit most hard because it has the biggest population or like we all suspect that the Reapers have targeted humanity after our continuous sabotaging of their plans in ME1 and ME2 and not "Earth is being attacked because mainstream gamers can relate", which is how I took it especially when Shepard multiple times says "Earth!" as if it all makes sense.
They should've addressed why Earth was being the main focus a bit more directly IMO, like explain that Earth is being hit most hard because it has the biggest population or like we all suspect that the Reapers have targeted humanity after our continuous sabotaging of their plans in ME1 and ME2 and not "Earth is being attacked because mainstream gamers can relate", which is how I took it especially when Shepard multiple times says "Earth!" as if it all makes sense.
In Mass Effect 2, it is said that Earth would be attacked (so would be the main focus).
Retour en haut
