Putting the war effort coordinators aboard a ship that goes over what is basically enemy controlled territory is a retarded decision from a military point of view. Trusting Shepard isn't even part of that equation.
You'll get no argument from me but this is about trusting Shepard with sensitive information not how the galaxy should coordinate their war effort. If they can trust Shepard with keep the crucible a secret then they can do the same with an ark ship.
Nobody would tell Shepard about such a plan because Shepard would insist on it being shut down so the resources could be focused on the Reapers. Like it or not "we fight or we die, that is the plan." No point in saving thousands if it meant abandoning the milky way and leaving trillions to die.
What does trust have to do with anything, anyway? Would telling Shepard about an escape plan be of any use to him or anyone else?
Yes. One way it would be of use is it can help set Shepard's mind somewhat at ease knowing that there are contingency plans in place rather than everything relying solely on them. We see this when Liara presents her idea of time capsules to Shepard.
Nobody would tell Shepard about such a plan because Shepard would insist on it being shut down so the resources could be focused on the Reapers. Like it or not "we fight or we die, that is the plan." No point in saving thousands if it meant abandoning the milky way and leaving trillions to die.
Except Shepard would never turn down a plan B should the crucible fail.
You'll get no argument from me but this is about trusting Shepard with sensitive information not how the galaxy should coordinate their war effort. If they can trust Shepard with keep the crucible a secret then they can do the same with an ark ship.
Shepard knew where the crucible was otherwise how would he/she know what the coordinates are to give to Mordin to help with the project?
https://youtu.be/RKve3voj19A?t=2m48s
Just because they trusted Shepard with the information that the Crucible was being built, doesn't mean that they trusted him with the location of it. Presumably, it is sitting in interstellar space or in a random nondescript star system located shortly off the relay network. Do you know how hard it would be to find something like that in the vastness of space? Literally, nearly impossible. As long as he didn't know WHERE it was, it wouldn't matter if he got captured or indoctrinated. The Reapers would have zero chance of finding it until the allied forces played their hand and moved it.
Shepard wasn't really concered about the location of the cruicble but rather that its going to stop the reapers. Shepard wouldn't care about the location about a suposed ark but rather the fact there is a plan B should the crucible fail. There's also the fact that the reaper's were going to learn of the cruicble existance eventually since its such a large scale project as ponited out by hackett just before priority: earth tehre was no way it was going to stay secret forever.
But that's the thing. You don't have to keep the existence of the Crucible completely secret forever. But you do have to keep the existence of an Ark project secret forever, or the Reapers will come after them. It'd be nice to ease poor Shepard's worried mind, but Shepard's a big girl and can handle the responsibility of being the only hope.
I suppose the logical approach would be a lot of suicides. Say, blowing the relay in the system the Ark launched from.
Keep a large scale project like the crucible secret it easier said than done even before the priority earth rumor's of the crucibles existence were spreading. An ark ship wouldn't fair much better given the logistics behind it are going to be rather demanding.
But that's the thing. You don't have to keep the existence of the Crucible completely secret forever. But you do have to keep the existence of an Ark project secret forever, or the Reapers will come after them. It'd be nice to ease poor Shepard's worried mind, but Shepard's a big girl and can handle the responsibility of being the only hope.
I suppose the logical approach would be a lot of suicides. Say, blowing the relay in the system the Ark launched from.
If the Reapers would go after an ark ship, they would definitely go after a weapon designed to kill them.
And purposefully putting that stress on the person you've pinned your hopes on rather than easing their mind is counterproductive. Especially when facing opponents who can use stress to their advantage. So unless the leaders want the Reapers to have advantages, they would tell Shepard that there was at least a back up plan.
As for commiting genocide to keep a secret, if so I hope we get to punish everyone who approved of the idea.
Keep a large scale project like the crucible secret it easier said than done even before the priority earth rumor's of the crucibles existence were spreading. An ark ship wouldn't fair much better given the logistics behind it are going to be rather demanding.
An ark ship would be even harder to keep secret since it would involve even more personnel and resources to crack the problems compared to the Crucible which information was practically spoonfed to us.
Not to mention that the Crucible itself was already threatening to collapse the galaxy's infrastructure. If they were suddenly also working on an intergalactic vessel, they would doom the galaxy even if we won against the Reapers.
The confirmation or debunking of "ark theory" will either prove Bioware's continued descent into hack writing OR it'll once again prove that the BSN takes rumors and/or attention-whores way too seriously.
If the Reapers would go after an ark ship, they would definitely go after a weapon designed to kill them.
And purposefully putting that stress on the person you've pinned your hopes on rather than easing their mind is counterproductive. Especially when facing opponents who can use stress to their advantage. So unless the leaders want the Reapers to have advantages, they would tell Shepard that there was at least a back up plan.
As for commiting genocide to keep a secret, if so I hope we get to punish everyone who approved of the idea.
The confirmation or debunking of "ark theory" will either prove Bioware's continued descent into hack writing OR it'll once again prove that the BSN takes rumors and/or attention-whores way too seriously.
Yep. They would go after both. The difference is that they'd have less of a chance to find the Crucible since they don't have as long to find it.
How do you figure? If the ark doesn't leave before the Crucible fires, it has no point. Therefore the Reapers have an equal chance of locating both. And with all the resources needed for both projects, they would have found them. For all we know, the only reason the Reapers didn't go for the Crucible is because it could work for their goals ie Synthesis.
This is a bit confused. Of course you don't want to purposefully put stress on Shepard, but nobody's talking about doing that. The question is whether you'll purposefully relieve Shepard's stress at the cost of a security breach for the alternative project.
You can make a case for that, but the case relies on Shepard being weaker than any of my Shepards were.
Keeping the fact that their is a Plan B from the driving force behind Plan A is purposefully putting stress on them because them not knowing of the contingencies is a choice. As for the risk of a potential security breach, again Shepard is given access to knowledge of literally everything involved in the effort to prevent the Reapers from achieving their objective. To suddenly say they kept something as big as an intergalactic ark, something that is on par if not beyond the Crucible, a secret is impossible. If they couldn't keep the Anti-Reaper Superweapon secret, they can't keep something like an ark a secret.
The strain on Shepard is the same regardless of who's Shepard it is. All Shepards react to the death of the child and the billions of others they cannot save, having nightmares about it as a result.
Oh, grow up. The stakes are extinction versus non-extinction, right? Compared to that, one system doesn't matter
Don't tell other posters to grow up. Your viewpoint is no more valid than anyone else's.
Genocide is genocide. The whole "ruthless calculus" defense is not a valid one. It makes the people who accept it no better than the Reapers, and thus deserve the same punishment.
Not to mention that the Crucible itself was already threatening to collapse the galaxy's infrastructure. If they were suddenly also working on an intergalactic vessel, they would doom the galaxy even if we won against the Reapers.
Have you ever wondered how they built the Crucible?
Each time I play ME3 I get bugged by how do they:
- house everyone that is working on it
- feed everyone that is working on it
- manufacture what they need to build it (it's much larger than the ship they normally build)
- keep the ships that harvest construction material fueled
- entertain everyone who are on their off time to keep moral high
- deal with medical emergency
- "send back home" all the workers when they are done
Everything required to keep people working needs to be produced onsite. This mean they either built the Crucible right beside an already existing space station/space dock or they built one at the same time as the Crucible. That station would need to be self sufficient on life support for various species and capable of manufacturing new ships and equipment as required.
Slap a FTL drive on it and you got an ark...full of people.
The whole "ruthless calculus" defense is not a valid one.
It most certainly is, actually.
It makes the people who accept it no better than the Reapers, and thus deserve the same punishment.
No, it makes them logical. It makes them realists.
Genocide is genocide. The whole "ruthless calculus" defense is not a valid one. It makes the people who accept it no better than the Reapers, and thus deserve the same punishment.
Sure it is. An example: let's say you can actually stop the asteroid from colliding with the Alpha Relay, sparing the 300,000 people in that system, but in doing so, the entire galaxy gets overrun by the reapers in a matter of days, seeing a swift end to all of galactic civilization. Would you still stop the asteroid, and accept total extinction over the loss of the Bahak system? That doesn't seem better than anything, really. What good is being "better" than the reapers if everyone is dead?
The obvious irony here is that the whole idea of sparing everyone no matter what can simply end in you being punished anyway. A smaller example: Rana Thanoptis. This fool gets in league with Saren and could very well be indoctrinated, so I shot her. It's the same reason why I didn't release any of the salarians being held on Virmire either, not even the coherent one. They're all a potential liability, so they all stay behind. And it seems that sparing Thanoptis actually has a negative effect, since in sparing her, several more lives were ended.
Have you ever wondered how they built the Crucible?
Each time I play ME3 I get bugged by how do they:
- house everyone that is working on it
- feed everyone that is working on it
- manufacture what they need to build it (it's much larger than the ship they normally build)
- keep the ships that harvest construction material fueled
- entertain everyone who are on their off time to keep moral high
- deal with medical emergency
- "send back home" all the workers when they are done
Everything required to keep people working needs to be produced onsite. This mean they either built the Crucible right beside an already existing space station/space dock or they built one at the same time as the Crucible. That station would need to be self sufficient on life support for various species and capable of manufacturing new ships and equipment as required.
Slap a FTL drive on it and you got an ark...full of people.
Its easier said than done since most off the resources are gathered offsite and the crucible is taking a huge strain on the galaxies economy. Keeping the whole project ruining especially a large scale one during wartime is going to be very difficult since its requires hundreds of thousands of personal and a lot of ships to gather resources as a lot of resources are already going to be dedicated to the war effort.
Having another large scale project going on along side the crucible will just make resources even more demanding since keeping two such projects ruining at the same time is just going to make the economic strain even worse. Not to mention its going to be very hard to find the needed personal required to build an ark is going to be extremely hard since most if not all the galaxies engineers are already building the crucible.
Its easier said than done since most off the resources are gathered offsite and the crucible is taking a huge strain on the galaxies economy. Keeping the whole project ruining especially a large scale one during wartime is going to be very difficult since its requires hundreds of thousands of personal and a lot of ships to gather resources as a lot of resources are already going to be dedicated to the war effort.
Having another large scale project going on along side the crucible will just make resources even more demanding since keeping two such projects ruining at the same time is just going to make the economic strain even worse. Not to mention its going to be very hard to find the needed personal required to build an ark is going to be extremely hard since most if not all the galaxies engineers are already building the crucible.
You fail at reading. It's not another large scale project, in my example, it is the space station/ships they need to build to house and feed the "hundred of thousands" of people required to built the Crucible.
No, it makes them logical. It makes them realists.
It makes them mass murderers and war criminals. Last I checked, we punish war criminals even if they had "good" intentions.
*snip*
How'd those tactics turn out for the Protheans again? With their extinction minus one jerk of a soldier, I believe.
Sure it is. An example: let's say you can actually stop the asteroid from colliding with the Alpha Relay, sparing the 300,000 people in that system, but in doing so, the entire galaxy gets overrun by the reapers in a matter of days, seeing a swift end to all of galactic civilization. Would you still stop the asteroid, and accept total extinction over the loss of the Bahak system? That doesn't seem better than anything, really. What good is being "better" than the reapers if everyone is dead?
Yes, I would still stop the asteroid.
In a real world sense, I have no idea how the war will turn out. None of us do. So there is no guarantee of this inevitable loss if they aren't slowed down. At least no more than if we get a few more months. It would also gain us the support of the Batarians, at least in the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sense. So the chance to gain an ally over no discernible loss. That's a bargain.
In a metagame sense, we know that sacrifice did absolutely nothing. In fact, it harmed us more than helped since it gave the Reapers months to build up their forces while eliminating a large chunk of a potential ally of our's fighting force.
The obvious irony here is that the whole idea of sparing everyone no matter what can simply end in you being punished anyway. A smaller example: Rana Thanoptis. This fool gets in league with Saren and could very well be indoctrinated, so I shot her. It's the same reason why I didn't release any of the salarians being held on Virmire either, not even the coherent one. They're all a potential liability, so they all stay behind. And it seems that sparing Thanoptis actually has a negative effect, since in sparing her, several more lives were ended.
So we should kill anyone who might pose a threat? In that case, the Reapers would come to a galaxy devoid of life since everyone can pose a risk.
That said, I wouldn't have let Rana go free either since she could be indoctrinated. There are options between let free and kill, though the game limits you to those two.
Have you ever wondered how they built the Crucible?
Each time I play ME3 I get bugged by how do they:
- house everyone that is working on it
- feed everyone that is working on it
- manufacture what they need to build it (it's much larger than the ship they normally build)
- keep the ships that harvest construction material fueled
- entertain everyone who are on their off time to keep moral high
- deal with medical emergency
- "send back home" all the workers when they are done
Everything required to keep people working needs to be produced onsite. This mean they either built the Crucible right beside an already existing space station/space dock or they built one at the same time as the Crucible. That station would need to be self sufficient on life support for various species and capable of manufacturing new ships and equipment as required.
Slap a FTL drive on it and you got an ark...full of people.
It's not as simple as "slap a FTL drive on it and you got an ark". They still have to solve the issues of intergalactic travel, like food, water, and air for various races for centuries of travel or a way to keep the FTL drive from cooking them all since there is nowhere to discharge in the void between galaxies.
It makes them mass murderers and war criminals.
No, it doesn't. Allowing people to perish in order to give a whole lot more people a fighting chance isn't murder.
Retour en haut