Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1089 (click to see context) from:
*** What I don't get is how an all-terrain vehicle could flip so easily?[[/folder]]
to:
*** What I don't get is how an all-terrain vehicle could flip so easily?[[/folder]]easily?
*** That's because the [=ME1=] physics engine is ''very bad'' at handling the Mako.[[/folder]]
*** That's because the [=ME1=] physics engine is ''very bad'' at handling the Mako.[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1088 (click to see context) from:
** It makes sense if you consider that the Mako is not really supposed to be a tank so much as it is a light infantry vehicle. For its intended purpose, it works just fine, providing a light, fast, relatively all-terrain vehicle that can carry a fire team and support them. To that end, i tlooks liek the Mako was built to be both cheap and as small and ligthweigth as possible - probably why its armor can't repel more than a couple of infantry rockets and is vulnerable to small arms. The turret looks like it was designed to be as small and limited as possible while still mounting a light anti-armor gun and machinegun, so they probably deliberately skimped on the movement and elevation machinery to keep it light. Its not built for fighting in a hull down position. Keep in mind that throughout the game, we do encounter what looks like an actual armored fighting vehicle with a much larger turret that rises up from the top of the vehicle, and probably has a much more effective firing arc, and in the second game there's a lot of larger, heavier APCs that appear to be designed for heavier combat (i.e. the tank-like vehicles in Hock's garages during Kasumi's mission). The Mako's limitations are most likely due to its role as an extremely light, cheap recon/fireteam support vehicle.[[/folder]]
to:
** It makes sense if you consider that the Mako is not really supposed to be a tank so much as it is a light infantry vehicle. For its intended purpose, it works just fine, providing a light, fast, relatively all-terrain vehicle that can carry a fire team and support them. To that end, i tlooks liek the Mako was built to be both cheap and as small and ligthweigth as possible - probably why its armor can't repel more than a couple of infantry rockets and is vulnerable to small arms. The turret looks like it was designed to be as small and limited as possible while still mounting a light anti-armor gun and machinegun, so they probably deliberately skimped on the movement and elevation machinery to keep it light. Its not built for fighting in a hull down position. Keep in mind that throughout the game, we do encounter what looks like an actual armored fighting vehicle with a much larger turret that rises up from the top of the vehicle, and probably has a much more effective firing arc, and in the second game there's a lot of larger, heavier APCs that appear to be designed for heavier combat (i.e. the tank-like vehicles in Hock's garages during Kasumi's mission). The Mako's limitations are most likely due to its role as an extremely light, cheap recon/fireteam support vehicle.[[/folder]]vehicle.
*** What I don't get is how an all-terrain vehicle could flip so easily?[[/folder]]
*** What I don't get is how an all-terrain vehicle could flip so easily?[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1087 (click to see context) from:
* Somewhat petty but throughly annoying - why does the turret on the Mako have such poor elevation controls, to the point that being a very shallow slope will be able to throw the accuracy of the thing off to the familar sight of hitting the top of a mountain in the distance? I can appreciate the need for it to be as low as possible to the hull so as little as possible is exposed in a fight, but to the point it cannot aim down at all? I'm fairly sure modern armoured vehicles can aim their turrets down and the very principle of a 'hull down' position requires it... you'd have thought 150 years on they would have improved on this staple of armoured combat doctrine, not forgotten about it. It just bugs me that you have to expose your entire vehicle to enemy fire in order to fight back. Especially when you're nearly always outnumbered and out-gunned.[[/folder]]
to:
* Somewhat petty but throughly annoying - why does the turret on the Mako have such poor elevation controls, to the point that being a very shallow slope will be able to throw the accuracy of the thing off to the familar sight of hitting the top of a mountain in the distance? I can appreciate the need for it to be as low as possible to the hull so as little as possible is exposed in a fight, but to the point it cannot aim down at all? I'm fairly sure modern armoured vehicles can aim their turrets down and the very principle of a 'hull down' position requires it... you'd have thought 150 years on they would have improved on this staple of armoured combat doctrine, not forgotten about it. It just bugs me that you have to expose your entire vehicle to enemy fire in order to fight back. Especially when you're nearly always outnumbered and out-gunned.out-gunned.
** It makes sense if you consider that the Mako is not really supposed to be a tank so much as it is a light infantry vehicle. For its intended purpose, it works just fine, providing a light, fast, relatively all-terrain vehicle that can carry a fire team and support them. To that end, i tlooks liek the Mako was built to be both cheap and as small and ligthweigth as possible - probably why its armor can't repel more than a couple of infantry rockets and is vulnerable to small arms. The turret looks like it was designed to be as small and limited as possible while still mounting a light anti-armor gun and machinegun, so they probably deliberately skimped on the movement and elevation machinery to keep it light. Its not built for fighting in a hull down position. Keep in mind that throughout the game, we do encounter what looks like an actual armored fighting vehicle with a much larger turret that rises up from the top of the vehicle, and probably has a much more effective firing arc, and in the second game there's a lot of larger, heavier APCs that appear to be designed for heavier combat (i.e. the tank-like vehicles in Hock's garages during Kasumi's mission). The Mako's limitations are most likely due to its role as an extremely light, cheap recon/fireteam support vehicle.[[/folder]]
** It makes sense if you consider that the Mako is not really supposed to be a tank so much as it is a light infantry vehicle. For its intended purpose, it works just fine, providing a light, fast, relatively all-terrain vehicle that can carry a fire team and support them. To that end, i tlooks liek the Mako was built to be both cheap and as small and ligthweigth as possible - probably why its armor can't repel more than a couple of infantry rockets and is vulnerable to small arms. The turret looks like it was designed to be as small and limited as possible while still mounting a light anti-armor gun and machinegun, so they probably deliberately skimped on the movement and elevation machinery to keep it light. Its not built for fighting in a hull down position. Keep in mind that throughout the game, we do encounter what looks like an actual armored fighting vehicle with a much larger turret that rises up from the top of the vehicle, and probably has a much more effective firing arc, and in the second game there's a lot of larger, heavier APCs that appear to be designed for heavier combat (i.e. the tank-like vehicles in Hock's garages during Kasumi's mission). The Mako's limitations are most likely due to its role as an extremely light, cheap recon/fireteam support vehicle.[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1084 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: The turret on the Mako]]
* Somewhat petty but throughly annoying - why does the turret on the Mako have such poor elevation controls, to the point that being a very shallow slope will be able to throw the accuracy of the thing off to the familar sight of hitting the top of a mountain in the distance? I can appreciate the need for it to be as low as possible to the hull so as little as possible is exposed in a fight, but to the point it cannot aim down at all? I'm fairly sure modern armoured vehicles can aim their turrets down and the very principle of a 'hull down' position requires it... you'd have thought 150 years on they would have improved on this staple of armoured combat doctrine, not forgotten about it. It just bugs me that you have to expose your entire vehicle to enemy fire in order to fight back. Especially when you're nearly always outnumbered and out-gunned.[[/folder]]
[[folder: The turret on the Mako]]
* Somewhat petty but throughly annoying - why does the turret on the Mako have such poor elevation controls, to the point that being a very shallow slope will be able to throw the accuracy of the thing off to the familar sight of hitting the top of a mountain in the distance? I can appreciate the need for it to be as low as possible to the hull so as little as possible is exposed in a fight, but to the point it cannot aim down at all? I'm fairly sure modern armoured vehicles can aim their turrets down and the very principle of a 'hull down' position requires it... you'd have thought 150 years on they would have improved on this staple of armoured combat doctrine, not forgotten about it. It just bugs me that you have to expose your entire vehicle to enemy fire in order to fight back. Especially when you're nearly always outnumbered and out-gunned.[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Read at your own risk, there be no spoiler tags here!
to:
Read at your own risk, there be no spoiler tags here!
here! '''Please feel free to add new entries at the bottom.'''
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Holding back the Alliance and turian ships to go after Sovereign]]
* One argument I often hear in favor of sacrificing the ''Destiny Ascension'', the Council, and the ship's 10,000 occupants (I don't remember, was that mentioned in the first game?), is that you can instead use the Alliance ships that were to be sacrificed to save the ''Ascension'', to instead go after ''Sovereign.'' Before any of that happens, you as the player watch ''Sovereign'' just [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKIbuNajk6U plow through another ship like it was nothing]] (around 1:47). Knowing this as the player (even though Shepard himself may not have seen this and thus couldn't use this to make a decision), I would begin asking myself if ''any'' number of additional ships would have been enough to harm ''Sovereign'' at the time.
** Since Shepard probably didn't see the nonchalant ship-ramming, should s/he simply assume that ''Sovereign'' is an ordinary ship, if a very big one, that can be blown to bits with enough firepower? I don't remember if ''Sovereign's'' impenetrable shields get a mention prior to Joker going in for the kill after Saren dies (and the fate of the ''Destiny Ascension'' has already been decided).
** My question inverts itself after Saren dies -- no matter whether you sacrificed the Arcturus fleet to save the ''Destiny Ascension'' or held them back "just in case," ''Sovereign'' still gets destroyed just as easily, and those extra ships were effectively not needed anyway. In the end you either have several thousands dead, or a few more thousands dead on top of that, three of whom were the most powerful people in Citadel space if not the galaxy, along with an allied fleet that's been effectively cut in half with the loss of one ship. If the two choices were meant to be [[GreyAndGreyMorality justifiable in their own ways]], shouldn't they have gone something like this -- "You chose to save the ''Ascension'', so in the meantime, the ships you lost were unable to save a secondary target that would have somehow been saved[[hottip:*:instead of the Council, the ''Ascension'', and its other 10,000 passengers]] if you had reserved the fleet for ''Sovereign''?"
[[folder:Holding back the Alliance and turian ships to go after Sovereign]]
* One argument I often hear in favor of sacrificing the ''Destiny Ascension'', the Council, and the ship's 10,000 occupants (I don't remember, was that mentioned in the first game?), is that you can instead use the Alliance ships that were to be sacrificed to save the ''Ascension'', to instead go after ''Sovereign.'' Before any of that happens, you as the player watch ''Sovereign'' just [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKIbuNajk6U plow through another ship like it was nothing]] (around 1:47). Knowing this as the player (even though Shepard himself may not have seen this and thus couldn't use this to make a decision), I would begin asking myself if ''any'' number of additional ships would have been enough to harm ''Sovereign'' at the time.
** Since Shepard probably didn't see the nonchalant ship-ramming, should s/he simply assume that ''Sovereign'' is an ordinary ship, if a very big one, that can be blown to bits with enough firepower? I don't remember if ''Sovereign's'' impenetrable shields get a mention prior to Joker going in for the kill after Saren dies (and the fate of the ''Destiny Ascension'' has already been decided).
** My question inverts itself after Saren dies -- no matter whether you sacrificed the Arcturus fleet to save the ''Destiny Ascension'' or held them back "just in case," ''Sovereign'' still gets destroyed just as easily, and those extra ships were effectively not needed anyway. In the end you either have several thousands dead, or a few more thousands dead on top of that, three of whom were the most powerful people in Citadel space if not the galaxy, along with an allied fleet that's been effectively cut in half with the loss of one ship. If the two choices were meant to be [[GreyAndGreyMorality justifiable in their own ways]], shouldn't they have gone something like this -- "You chose to save the ''Ascension'', so in the meantime, the ships you lost were unable to save a secondary target that would have somehow been saved[[hottip:*:instead of the Council, the ''Ascension'', and its other 10,000 passengers]] if you had reserved the fleet for ''Sovereign''?"
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 116 (click to see context) from:
** Until Eden Prime, the geth had isolated themselves for three hundred years, in an area without known and active Mass Effect Relays or communication subrelays. Barring those devices, getting a message from the Veil to the Citadel could take weeks, and it's not clear there would be much to say. The geth don't speak in a way that universal translators like, and even killing one is unlikely to give any useful information. All you could really find out is production schedules. And that would be the real risky part. The Geth weren't part of the Council's limit on destroyer manufacture, nor did they seem to care about the other Council races, only those space-gypsies trying to shut them down. The Council was being stand-offish and avoiding the Veil and the Traverse specifically to keep things that polite because their military might well not have been able to win, and sending spies in would only encourage military action.
to:
** Until Eden Prime, the geth had isolated themselves for three hundred years, in an area without known and active Mass Effect Relays or communication subrelays. Barring those devices, getting a message from the Veil to the Citadel could take weeks, and it's not clear there would be much to say. The geth don't speak in a way that universal translators {{universal translator}}s like, and even killing one is unlikely to give any useful information. All you could really find out is production schedules. And that would be the real risky part. The Geth weren't part of the Council's limit on destroyer manufacture, nor did they seem to care about the other Council races, only those space-gypsies trying to shut them down. The Council was being stand-offish and avoiding the Veil and the Traverse specifically to keep things that polite because their military might well not have been able to win, and sending spies in would only encourage military action.
Changed line(s) 410 (click to see context) from:
** While there is a common trade-language, almost everyone in the Mass Effect universe carries what we would term a "universal translator". It's made clear in the novels and DLC, if I recall correctly. Hence, why most of the alien races speak in [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/18-Mass-Effect pleasant North-American dialects]]. It's not to hard to imagine that there also exists a method to translate alien writing (whether via microchips in the brain, contact lenses, a helmet's HUD, what have you).
to:
** While there is a common trade-language, almost everyone in the Mass Effect universe carries what we would term a "universal translator"."UniversalTranslator". It's made clear in the novels and DLC, if I recall correctly. Hence, why most of the alien races speak in [[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/18-Mass-Effect pleasant North-American dialects]]. It's not to hard to imagine that there also exists a method to translate alien writing (whether via microchips in the brain, contact lenses, a helmet's HUD, what have you).
Changed line(s) 557 (click to see context) from:
Note that this is FIRST CONTACT meaning that communication by universal translators would have been impossible. The turians may very well have been trying to communicate with the humans but, unable to, may have attempted what was perceived as hostile actions (an alien shouting stuff at you and standing in the way of you doing something you think to be harmless... yeah, you might think that aggressive). Subsequently, the humans may have then responded with defensive measures of their own until all the miscommmunication builds up and someone fires a weapon that triggers a war. As what happens in a lot of wars and history, the facts of what happened may have simply been lost in the face of the bigger picture and of the subsequent political fallout especially considering our own limited knowledge of what happened. Both sides may have been right - they're just too invested in what happened (and too proud) to back down and try to settle things.
to:
Note that this is FIRST CONTACT meaning that communication by universal translators {{Universal Translator}}s would have been impossible. The turians may very well have been trying to communicate with the humans but, unable to, may have attempted what was perceived as hostile actions (an alien shouting stuff at you and standing in the way of you doing something you think to be harmless... yeah, you might think that aggressive). Subsequently, the humans may have then responded with defensive measures of their own until all the miscommmunication builds up and someone fires a weapon that triggers a war. As what happens in a lot of wars and history, the facts of what happened may have simply been lost in the face of the bigger picture and of the subsequent political fallout especially considering our own limited knowledge of what happened. Both sides may have been right - they're just too invested in what happened (and too proud) to back down and try to settle things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The hilarious fact here is that in ''the exact same conversation'' involving the one child only rule, one line later Tali outright says that they adjust the rule for periods where population is too low. I'm terribly amused and confused that OP managed to miss that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The Mako has a mass effect generator to make it "lighter" and increase its mobility. Presumably, the generator is dialed down on low-gravity worlds/moons to save power. As a result, the Mako seems to fall at the same rate no matter what planet it's on.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 5,10 (click to see context) :
[[folder:Luna and the Mako]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
[[/folder]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
[[/folder]]
Deleted line(s) 1071,1072 (click to see context) :
Changed line(s) 1078 (click to see context) from:
to:
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Luna and the Mako]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
** I've never had this experience. I mean, I have experiences where the Mako does seem fall at different rates depending on the planet I'm on. Specifically: Presrop. But I'm almost certain that I'm seeing things...
[[folder:Luna and the Mako]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
** I've never had this experience. I mean, I have experiences where the Mako does seem fall at different rates depending on the planet I'm on. Specifically: Presrop. But I'm almost certain that I'm seeing things...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
[[folder:Luna and the Mako]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
[[/folder]]
* Is it just me, or does the Mako have the same gravity on Luna, Earth's moon, as on all of the other planets? If a bunch of fictional planets want to have the same gravity, I can deal with that, but why does the Mako seem to fall as quickly on Luna as it does everywhere else, including a number of planets that don't always share densities, radii, or much of anything else?
[[/folder]]
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
*** Plus they could easily get further information to corroborate the data as well; Doctor Michel, for example, and information from the bodies of the men who tried to threaten/kill her, possibly information acquired by Jenna while she was working in Chora's Den, etc. There's also direct hard information available from Fist's own bar, possibly the recording of the conversation with Fist where he talks about Tali, Tali's own testimony....hell, if need be the Council could even go to the Shadow Broker for further evidence, as the Shadow Broker did hire Wrex to kill Fist because he betrayed Tali to Saren.
to:
*** Plus they could easily get further information to corroborate the data as well; Doctor Michel, for example, and information from the bodies of the men who tried to threaten/kill her, possibly information acquired by Jenna while she was working in Chora's Den, etc. There's also direct hard information available from Fist's own bar, possibly the recording of the conversation with Fist where he talks about Tali, Tali's own testimony....hell, if need be be, the Council could even go to the Shadow Broker for further evidence, as the Shadow Broker did hire Wrex to kill Fist because he Fist betrayed Tali (and the Shadow Broker) to Saren.
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
*** "I also don't think any witnesses would matter, given how they already discarded someone else's testimony against Saren." They dismissed a statement by a single panicked dockworker who overheard a name being spoken. That's a far different matter when compared with multiple corrobarating testimonies from reliable sources, including a C-Sec officer.
to:
*** "I also don't think any witnesses would matter, given how they already discarded someone else's testimony against Saren." They dismissed a statement by a single panicked dockworker who overheard a name being spoken. That's a far different matter when compared with multiple corrobarating corroborating testimonies from reliable sources, including a C-Sec officer.
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
*** Bit late to the party, but I'd like to note that Pallin doesn't doubt Saren's guilt. Ask him about Saren before it's proven, he'll say something to the effect of "Saren's bad, we both know that.".
to:
*** Bit late to the party, but I'd like to note that Pallin doesn't doubt Saren's guilt. Ask him about Saren before it's proven, he'll say something to the effect of "Saren's bad, we both know that.". "
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1071,1072 (click to see context) from:
** Not exactly. The title of the office means something different in other languages; when the Citadel encountered humanity, they programmed the translators to translate the term into an acronym suitable for the human language.
to:
** Not exactly. The title of the office means something different in other languages; when the Citadel encountered humanity, they programmed the translators to translate the term into an acronym suitable for the human language.
language. A good comparison here is, say the Japanese Self Defense Forces. There's an English acronym for them and a Japanese one, despite the fact that the Japanese don't ''use'' acronyms. So, most likely the asari simply translated their word for that particular office into a suitable term in the various human languages.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1071 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Not exactly. The title of the office means something different in other languages; when the Citadel encountered humanity, they programmed the translators to translate the term into an acronym suitable for the human language.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1070,1071 (click to see context) from:
* So the title of "Spectre" in the ''MassEffect'' universe is short for "SPECial Tactics and REconnaissance". The term was used long before humans were even around, and yet it somehow just happens to translate into the English word "spectre" perfectly? That's a ridiculous coincidence.
to:
* So the title of "Spectre" in the ''MassEffect'' universe is short for "SPECial Tactics "'''SPEC'''ial '''T'''actics and REconnaissance".'''RE'''connaissance". The term was used long before humans were even around, and yet it somehow just happens to translate into the English word "spectre" perfectly? That's a ridiculous coincidence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Spectres]]
* So the title of "Spectre" in the ''MassEffect'' universe is short for "SPECial Tactics and REconnaissance". The term was used long before humans were even around, and yet it somehow just happens to translate into the English word "spectre" perfectly? That's a ridiculous coincidence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The Thorian is some kind of plant. Plants rot, but it's not quite as virulent as an animal body, especially if it's largely underground. It also could be that the tendrils survived, but without the core thing you destroy, it's just a giant plant.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** From a purely military standpoint, there is another reason to save the Council: the ''Destiny Ascension'' with its BFG. I personally saved the Council just because I figured the ''Destiny Ascension'''s guns would be useful against Sovereign (although being moderately GenreSavvy I figured it didn't really make much of a difference). Then again, knowing those [[GasLeakCoverUp cowardly]], [[JerkAss weak-willed]], [[TooDumbToLive dumbass]] Councilors, they probably ordered the ''Destiny Ascension'' to run away the second they had a clear path to the Mass Relay.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 95 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Plus Sovereign just steam rolled the entire defending fleet. They put a wall of ships and Sovereign literally rammed them out of the way. They didn't even ''slow him down''. With Sovereign tanking the entire Citadel fleet, and the Geth already being fairly close as is, the Geth were able to quickly get to knife-fight range, and the Citadel Fleet mostly consisted of the Destiny Ascension and Turian ships. The Codex also mentions that the Turians have the most Dreadnoughts of anyone, so it's not impractical to think that a lot of the Turian ships were Dreadnoughts as well. Not to mention that Sovereign himself has a LOT of powerful guns, and since he tanked up to close range, he could have reasonably blown away many of the frigates and cruisers with his own guns, leaving the Dreadnoughts to be whittled down and eventually destroyed by the Geth.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** You also have to consider that, just as in real life, there are probably several parents who blatantly disregard the rule to have more children anyway, not to mention the possibility of accidental pregnancy (although given the mass of problems surrounding their suits, this is probably much less common). Ultimately though, the rule is adjusted based on need, keeping it at one per family in cases of overcrowding or offering incentives during population decline.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 814 (click to see context) from:
*** Of course all the costumes used by your party, Tali's included are fully functional spacesuits that let you run around the surface of the Moon unharmed. SoYeah.
to:
*** Of course all the costumes used by your party, Tali's included are fully functional spacesuits that let you run around the surface of the Moon unharmed. SoYeah.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
---> ''Wrex'': Right. Because you humans have a wide range of cultures and attitudes, but Krogan all think and act exactly alike.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1,2 (click to see context) from:
Read at your own risk, there be no spoilers here!
to:
Read at your own risk, there be no spoilers spoiler tags here!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** They use credit chits as a form of cash. I guess that the Shep had some loose chits on her.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
***** You tell Anoleis that Parasini is investigating him (you get the data, Parasini tells you who she is, you go to Anoleis, tell him who she is). He calls her in, then there's a gun fight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** How do you kill them? The most I've seen is Parasini arresting Anoleis, and he angrily insults her. I've never seen them actually attack each other.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** No, you have to give the information directly to Lorik to make him Administrator. If you give it to Parasini he'll reluctantly testify, but that's it. If you kill Anoleis and Parasini, he has no further use for the information at all.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Hmm, I may be wrong, but doesn't he only become Administrator if you give the evidence to Parasini? The appointment of the Administrator would be dependant on the Board of Directors', Anoleis shouldn't just be able to hand it over to him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Lorik uses the evidence to blackmail Anoleis and then become the new administrator of Hanshan. If you give him the evidence, then you come back later and chat with him, he's become the new administrator. (note that he ''won't'' be the administrator if you have Anoleis and Parasini kill each other - apparently he can't blackmail someone who's dead.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Anoleis was extorting money from the various corporations on Noveria. Qui'in was going to use it to blackmail Anoleis into leaving him and Synthetic Insights alone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1052 (click to see context) from:
* Anoeleis clearly wants the evidence so he can destroy it and protect his good name. The Internal Affairs woman want to send Anoleis to jail. But why does Lorik want it? He was hesitant to take the evidence to court, and there doesn't seem to be any other reason to want evidence against somebody unless you're going to use it.
to:
* Anoeleis clearly wants the evidence so he can destroy it and protect his good name. The Internal Affairs woman want to send Anoleis to jail. But why does Lorik want it? He was hesitant to take the evidence to court, and there doesn't seem to be any other reason to want evidence against somebody unless you're going to use it.it.
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1049 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
[[folder: What does Lorik Qui'in want with the evidence?]]
* Anoeleis clearly wants the evidence so he can destroy it and protect his good name. The Internal Affairs woman want to send Anoleis to jail. But why does Lorik want it? He was hesitant to take the evidence to court, and there doesn't seem to be any other reason to want evidence against somebody unless you're going to use it.
