Mass Effect 3

[Taak Farst]

So this Leviathan DLC sounds like we may get a Reaper teammate.

 

 

What the ****, Bioware? This is horse**** if true.

 

The DLC will make little sense until announced anyway, but it's certainly odd. Combined with the Extended Cut, it doesn't, anyway. If Shepard does this mission and discovers who the original creators of the star child were, as is hinted in the DLC leak, then why would he ask the star child who they were, like he can if you select the dialogue choice?

 

Secondly, Halo's Arbiter anyone? No thanks. I have no idea why a reaper would go rogue in the first place but w/e. If anything, it also pokes holes at the star child's 'solution', given that even its own 'solution' is quite stupid. It's even worse than before, if Reapers don't even obey it.

[Boba Rhett]

It'd also make the "Control" ending meaningless if Reapers can just go rogue.

[DarthParametric]

I expected more from 1.9gb, given that DLC like the Lair of the Shadow Broker was 1.5gb and contained over 2 hours of gameplay.

Extracting the archive, 1GB is pre-rendered video. The rest is primarily audio.

 

it still has the same shtick with a fuzzier coating but still sucked just as much as the original version.

Indeed. Seems to have done the trick for the majority of the outraged masses though. Which kind of makes you wonder what it was exactly that they were complaining about in the first place if they could be so easily swayed by a few additional lines of inconsequential dialogue and some extra space magic retconned in.

[Totenkopf]

stuff

 

Well, given the number of Reapers taking down Vancouver, Shepard never should have gotten off earth anyway. But, yeah, I thought it ridiculous that they could just swing in and make a pickup unscathed while Harbinger was decimating everything else in sight. If only reality could work out like that....

 

Originally Posted by Lynk Former View Post

it still has the same shtick with a fuzzier coating but still sucked just as much as the original version.

Indeed. Seems to have done the trick for the majority of the outraged masses though. Which kind of makes you wonder what it was exactly that they were complaining about in the first place if they could be so easily swayed by a few additional lines of inconsequential dialogue and some extra space magic retconned in.

 

If this ending placated the ragers, they were just bitching to bitch or had to have everything spelled out for them in the first place. Frankly, I learned long ago to expect little to nothing from entertainment in terms of being logically consistent or "realistic". Less chance of becoming despondent, enraged or even deranged when things don't go the way you want or think they should've.

[Lynk Former]

My problem with ME3 as a movie enthusiast is that they broke the rules they themselves set out in their own creation.

 

My problem with ME3 as a video game enthusiast is that my decisions ultimately didn't amount to anything in the end.

 

I wasn't expecting much from the Extended Cut to begin with, and to be honest, I really wasn't expecting much from ME3 to begin with either. Of course, that doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed. I realise what I wanted BioWare to do was completely unrealistic since I ultimately envisioned them to have an uncompromising story with layers of variation that made you run back to ME1 after you had finished because you knew that your actions would change the game THAT MUCH that by the time you got to ME3 it'd be a totally different game than the first run-through.

 

It's not, and I can understand why. In a way I'm fine with the ending as it is or was because it fits with that terrible b-grade sci-fi movie dynamic. Unfortunately, it gives me no reason at all to go back and play their games again to get a truly different set of variations.

[Totenkopf]

Truth be told, though, not really sure that big picture was going to be that affected by the many decisions Shep makes throughout b/c they seemed to be more on a micro or personal level. Most of them merely seemed to affect the journey to the end (who lived, died, etc..). That said, the whole 3 choice ending did seem to make hash of the claim that 1000s of variables will affect the outcome spiel they gave us. Perhaps the peril of promising (or at least seeming to) more than they could/did deliver. Btw, which rules set out in its creation did you feel/think were violated?

[Lynk Former]

Not all of Shep's decisions are on a micro/personal level though. A lot of them should be affecting the galaxy in drastic ways. The problem that BioWare faced was that to play out those variables, they would essentially have to create a number of different games to explore all of the permutations.

 

Instead, what they did was flatten out the story in-between each of the games. During each game you would be presented with many paths you could follow, but when you end the game, that path which had so many variables needed to be forced into easy to manage channels which didn't differ from each other too much. Thus you get the whole "nothing Shepard did really mattered" feeling. Of course, Shepard's decisions would have affected the big galactic picture, if BioWare had the resources and the guile to do it, they would have, but they took the easier option, which I can't really blame them for.

 

As for the rules they broke, it was mostly to do with style, genre and storytelling which they outlined in ME1 and 2. 3 ended up taking the series in a new direction. Of course, this is because the people who were writing the games to begin with weren't the ones who were writing ME3 and that ended up screwing with quite a few things.

 

 

 

 

The real point of all of this is simple though. ME3 didn't make me want to go back and replay the trilogy at all. In fact, at the end of ME3 it made me think "well, that's that, no point in going back now cause there really isn't that much variation to go back and explore."

 

And that is really disappointing for a trilogy that seemed to pride itself on the variables.

[DarthParametric]

this is because the people who were writing the games to begin with weren't the ones who were writing ME3 and that ended up screwing with quite a few things.

I think one of the main problems, regardless of who did the actual writing, was that there was never any sort of detailed overarching narrative planned out from the start for all three games to follow. They basically just made it all up as they went along. When all the ME3 ending drama erupted, and Karpyshyn was prompted by fans into making a public response, he said as much on his blog.

[igyman]

Went through the Extended Cut last night. In short it's still pretty bad, but slightly less than it used to be. At the very least the endings now feel like endings, instead of just stops. I do find it hilarious how Bioware insisted that they will not change their endings, only expand them and yet there are obvious changes to certain elements of the endings. Makes one wonder why they weren't willing to make some more small changes that would make the endings (IMO) more in tune with the rest of the series. But first, on to what they've done:

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

The Normandy pickup scene during the final push towards the teleport beam is the first addition in the EC and it makes as much (or rather as little) sense as the Normandy pickup scene at the beginning of the game. In both cases we've got Reapers in the immediate vicinity who decide to completely ignore the Normandy. Still, I think it's better to have that scene compared to what we had originally.

 

Small cinematic alterations and additions aside, the next important point are the new conversation options with the Starchild AI. I'm glad Bioware decided to add those, but they should have done a better job writing them. I can swallow the fire metaphor, the "You don't know them and there's not enough time to explain" answer to who created the Starchild and I can swallow that the Starchild created the Reapers. The thing about his creators being used for the first Reaper (Harbinger) against their will is also a nice touch and just shows how unstable the Starchild is. However, the Starchild still remains a character whose existence and inclusion in the ME universe makes no sense, because it still claims that it controls the Reapers (which I might be willing to accept on some level), but it also claims to be the embodiment of their collective intelligence, a part of the Citadel, etc. All this combined makes zero sense because some of these things are mutually exclusive (creator vs the embodiment of creation's collective intelligence, Reaper collective intelligence vs "we are each a nation, independent...") and some just don't fit with what was long since established (a part of the Citadel vs the Reaper vanguard and its role, the one who controls the Reapers vs "we are each a nation, independent...").

 

Next are the explanations of each choice, which have managed to confirm that synthesis makes no sense whatsoever, while control and destroy make some small amount of sense logically and, depending on the type of character your Shepard is, potentially story-wise. The ending that makes the most sense to me is the new one (another thing they said they would not do, ) where I tell the little ghostly f***er to go screw itself and the Reapers win. It's a shame they handled that ending rather poorly (Reaperchild:"SO BE IT!!!" Starchild:"The cycle continues.") Other than that, considering the added epilogue, control would be my second choice.

 

Out of the remaining changes, the one regarding the relays not blowing up, while kind of funny, completely makes sense and could even be considered necessary. However, the one where the Normandy escapes the blast and crash-lands on planet Random with little to no damage was completely unnecessary, IMO, as was the Normandy takeoff scene, which kind of makes the inclusion of planet Random and the crew disembarking in the previous scene pointless.

 

All in all, I kind of feel sorry for the console-playing people, because they had to endure the entire Cerberus base and Earth mission, just to see the changes at the very end of the Earth mission, while I was able to use an autosave-turned-to-manual-save at the start of the section with Harbinger as a starting point and save quite a bit of time.

 

Having said all that stuff in the spoiler section above, I have to go back to wondering why they insisted on keeping the Starchild character, which they failed to make sense of, instead of simply replacing it with holo-Harbinger and making a more logical and lore-friendly explanation for the Reapers, their motivation and the Crucible, considering they were willing to make certain changes to the endings and even add a new one.

[Boba Rhett]

Saw this, had to post.

 

 

Hi-larious.

[DarthParametric]

Where was our great biotic wind war asset?

[Lynk Former]

@ igy:

But then how can the characters get out of the ship and look off into the horizon heroically?

[logan23]

Saw this, had to post.

 

 

Hi-larious.

 

This is how the Reapers are defeated if you pick the Refusal Choice.

 

Reaper's just ignore the species,..since were unsure if they were advance enough to harvest.......So in the next cycle----that came back and bit them in the butt.

 

Great biotic wind for the Win!

[igyman]

@ igy:

But then how can the characters get out of the ship and look off into the horizon heroically?

 

Damn! Totally forgot about that crucial detail! We can't have a proper sense of closure without that.

 

@Rhett: Just another reason why the Biotic God is awesome.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

And had they used the indoctrination theory they would have opened up even bigger plot holes and pretty much proven that the ME series was just lazy amateur writing.

 

What are you thinking of, specifically?

 

In my mind, a plothole exists in that in the Arrival DLC,

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Shepard spent two days knocked out right next to a reaper artifact, after being electrocuted by the damn thing, all the while at the [almost direct] mercy of Harbinger. Harbinger also specifically made clear his intention to indoctrinate Shepard ("Your mind will be mine").

 

Do you know what happened to Saren Arterius and Jack Harper After being electrocuted by a Reaper artifact? It marked the beginning of their indoctrination (it's also where they got their funky signature eyes from, which Shepard clearly exhibits when executing Control or Synthesis). Saren went on to become the deranged dick you see in Mass Effect 1, and Harper goes on to become the classy dick you see in Mass Effect 2 and 3 (TIM).

 

Shepard's nightmares also match the description of Reaper indoctrination attempts elsewhere in ME media (oily shadows, reaper growling in the background).

 

Many of the so-called indicator that people have come up with are also signs of head trauma, the kind of trauma you may get from almost being obliterated by a reapers main gun.

...like piles of bodies appearing out of nowhere around the conduit? And Anderson and TIM's shadows defying the light sources in the level?

 

That's either a hallucination or bad game design (I'm going with the latter).

 

Also, I find it ridiculous that Shepard could survive anything close to a direct hit from a reaper attack beam. Those things have been shown tearing though Star Destroyer size ships, obliterating buildings, and vaporizing entire squads of soldiers. If anything gets hit by the Destroyer's beam in the last combat level, it's instant death.

That's why I found it reasonable to postulate that it wasn't an attack beam, but an "Indoctrination Beam".

 

I guess bioware should have done a better job showing Shepard was injured. The blood, destroyed armor, slowed movement... just wasn't enough to convince some people and TIM and Starkid pretty either implying or point blank stating that Shepard was not indoctrinated still did not convince people.

 

People weren't convinced because we though it was a dream. Not believing everything you see in a dream is a reasonable course of action.

 

As for the plausibility of the possibility, I thought Casey Hudson and Mac Walters were pulling a George Lucas/Empire Strikes Back with the ME3 ending. ESB's plot twist was developed in utmost secrecy, with Mark Hamill only being given the real line just before filming, and told to react accordingly on screen. Not even the rest of the cast/production crew knew about it, because the script they all got had Vader saying "Obi-Wan killed your father.", which is what David Prowse said on set, later to be dubbed over with the actual line by James Earl Jones. By the time the premier came around, only Lucas, Irvin Kershner, Hamill and Jones knew about it.

 

The result was a significant event in the history of movies. I think the same could have been done with games with ME3, with Bioware stringing fans along to believe one thing, only to blindside them with something else, all the while having laid clues to show that it wasn't just cheap retconning, but planned all along. It could just have been a more intense version of what they did in KotOR 1, with the 'more intense' part being made possible by the advent of DLC's.

 

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

mainly because it had that feeling that when a parent who sacrificed their freedom and took jobs like back in the early 1900s (ex cold miner) just so your kids would have a better life then yours. You might not even live to see it, and the future you hope for your kids might not happen even in their life but it's a sacrifice step that one of your future generations will go to college, be able to have freedoms to vote, not be enslaved, etc. It just felt that we do things within our terms and that might mean death for us but a future species will overcome, then all the Mass effect species cycles before them have not fought in vain...I think I'm rambling now lol

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

But Shepard couldn't have known if the next cycle would prevail. Sure there was Liara's archive, but that hardly provides any guarantee at all. For all Shepard knew, he could have been condemning countless more cycles to death than just his one or the next.

 

 

I still would love a DLC that touches on the Illusive man's abilities in the final scene and also talk about the concept of Indoctrination in general. I really thing the topic of Indoctrination is something they could do a DLC on with it's own mission/adventure. ( this would not be aimed at the ending- just exploring the concept of it, how it works- hints on how the Illusive man planned to use such abilities)

On the subject of DLC's, I think Bioware needs to be careful. This whole debacle had fans successfully pressuring them into making a DLC, and now, people are calling for DLC this, and DLC that, left and right, for everything. What's worse is that given EA's character, it's very possible that they may make Bioware capitalize on this.

 

This is bad because sometimes, a story can be ruined by providing more detail to something, which changes the perception of it, which was a dynamic that contributed to the quality of the story. Like with this Leviathan thing. I think it would be better to leave the Reapers as the ambiguous, unknown entities that they are. It makes them more terrifying and alien.

 

As for the concept of indoctrination, I still think the ideal time to have done it was ME3's ending. As it is, this whole thing with the starchild is one hell of a deus ex machina, and the Indoctrination Theory could have done away with that.

 

I AM HARBINGER

I WILL SHOOT DEATH BEAMS AT YOU

OH, SORRY YOU'RE HAVING A TOUCHING MOMENT?

I AM HARBINGER

I WILL STOP SHOOTING DEATH BEAMS AT YOU FOR THE MOMENT WHILE YOU HAVE A TOUCHING MOMENT

lol

 

Mass Effect has always been a "high production b-grade sci-fi movie" and throughout the trilogy it has managed to represent the three major types of these b-grade sci-fi movies you'd generally see.

 

There's the boring one but had a really great concept that got a cult following happening. Aka Mass Effect (1).

 

Then we have the more exciting type which, for a b-grade sci-fi, is seen as being poorly made compared to the boring type but is the most entertaining type to watch. Aka Mass Effect 2.

 

Finally, there's the movie which doesn't seem to care about its genre and ends up screwing itself up the ass, breaking its own rules which ends up creating a really terrible ending. Aka Mass Effect 3.

 

 

BioWare, whether intentional or not, has managed to capture the major types of b-grade sci-fi movies in its Mass Effect trilogy. So whether I personally enjoyed the ending or not doesn't really matter because when I think about Mass Effect in this way, everything makes perfect sense.

 

Mass Effect may be a b-grade sci-fi movie trilogy, but it's a b-grade trilogy you can be part of. I think that's the reason for ME's success, as opposed to any spectacular quality of writing. It's the emotional engagement of the player with the characters, which Bioware does so well. In this regard, imo it's 'the journey that's more important than the destination' (ie, the playing of the game as opposed to the actual ending), and it's for this reason that I personally will be likely to play these games again.

 

So this Leviathan DLC sounds like we may get a Reaper teammate.

 

 

What the ****, Bioware? This is horse**** if true.

 

 

It'd also make the "Control" ending meaningless if Reapers can just go rogue.

 

^agree.

 

Indeed. Seems to have done the trick for the majority of the outraged masses though. Which kind of makes you wonder what it was exactly that they were complaining about in the first place if they could be so easily swayed by a few additional lines of inconsequential dialogue and some extra space magic retconned in.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me as i've said, it was about closure; which the EC provides some measure of, which is why these endings works for me, more or less.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Next are the explanations of each choice, which have managed to confirm that synthesis makes no sense whatsoever,

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

I just chalk it up to "space-magic, *snort snort*". lol

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Out of the remaining changes, the one regarding the relays not blowing up, while kind of funny, completely makes sense and could even be considered necessary. However, the one where the Normandy escapes the blast and crash-lands on planet Random with little to no damage was completely unnecessary, IMO, as was the Normandy takeoff scene, which kind of makes the inclusion of planet Random and the crew disembarking in the previous scene pointless.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

I think the idea was to communicate a "new day is dawning" concept.

I imagine some amount of work went into it, which is why they didn't want to take it out.

 

But imo with the original endings, it also totally said "shipwreck on a deserted island" (and with the old Synthesis, I also got a strong "Adam and Eve" vibe as well).

 

[Lynk Former]

Mass Effect may be a b-grade sci-fi movie trilogy, but it's a b-grade trilogy you can be part of. I think that's the reason for ME's success, as opposed to any spectacular quality of writing. It's the emotional engagement of the player with the characters, which Bioware does so well. In this regard, imo it's 'the journey that's more important than the destination' (ie, the playing of the game as opposed to the actual ending), and it's for this reason that I personally will be likely to play these games again.

So then essentially it's no different from any other game.

 

Usually I'd agree with you, but the ending is such nonsense that it ruined the journey (especially any subsequent journeys) too. I was prepared for multiple runs of the trilogy before I witnessed the ME3 ending leaks... however, now I'm of the opinion that once around is all the series deserves from me.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

So then essentially it's no different from any other game.

Well, yes. I don't think I implied otherwise. But if there were a distinguishing element of ME that set it apart from other games, I'd say it's Bioware's aforementioned style of emotional engagement. Gamers just can't seem to get over engaging with game-worlds on an interpersonal level (as evidenced by Bioware's extreme success with it's RPG's.. even though the structure of most of those games are almost exactly the same..)

 

Usually I'd agree with you, but the ending is such nonsense that it ruined the journey (especially any subsequent journeys) too. I was prepared for multiple runs of the trilogy before I witnessed the ME3 ending leaks... however, now I'm of the opinion that once around is all the series deserves from me.

Fair enough. BW did imply that they'd implement an unprecedented level of choice-outcome/storyline permutation complexity. It's quite apparent they didn't deliver. (Though as I've said before, I never took those statements seriously - it just sounded like standard [meaningless] marketing blurb to me).

 

 

On another note, Is anyone playing the multiplayer?

 

I've never really liked first-person shooters, but preferred third-person ones. Mass Effect 3's is the first third-person shooter multiplayer I've played, and I gotta say, I'm getting a serious kick out of it. I love it!

 

What really surprised me is that the MP feels just like the SP. Sure, things have been tweaked a little, but for the most part, the weapons, powers, and gameplay feel just like the SP. I don't know if this is to be expected of a game with SP and MP (I don't have much experience with MP's), but for some reason, I expected the MP to feel quite different. (I'm glad that I was wrong.)

[Red Hessian]

Usually I'd agree with you, but the ending is such nonsense that it ruined the journey (especially any subsequent journeys) too. I was prepared for multiple runs of the trilogy before I witnessed the ME3 ending leaks... however, now I'm of the opinion that once around is all the series deserves from me.

 

I agree with you, but I just treat the endings (and the whole ME3, in fact) like parts of the Expanded Universe in Star Wars: completely ignore it. For me the series ended with the destruction of the Collector base. Period. I can replay ME & ME2 to my heart's content, and even if I wanted to play ME3, I can't because I returned it two months ago.

 

You should try it, it's very cathartic. Haven't felt better since I refunded Dragon Age 2.

[Lynk Former]

Well, yes. I don't think I implied otherwise. But if there were a distinguishing element of ME that set it apart from other games, I'd say it's Bioware's aforementioned style of emotional engagement. Gamers just can't seem to get over engaging with game-worlds on an interpersonal level (as evidenced by Bioware's extreme success with it's RPG's.. even though the structure of most of those games are almost exactly the same..)

I've played quite a lot of other games... what BioWare has isn't unique, but like I said before, they have successfully followed the formula of creating a game that is also a b-grade sci-fi movie series.

 

 

Fair enough. BW did imply that they'd implement an unprecedented level of choice-outcome/storyline permutation complexity. It's quite apparent they didn't deliver. (Though as I've said before, I never took those statements seriously - it just sounded like standard [meaningless] marketing blurb to me).

Don't promise it if you can't deliver. It's just as disappointing as when Nintendo said how the Wii Remotes motion controls would do this, this and this. They only just STARTED delivering what they promised with Skyward Sword but it was too little, too late.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you, but I just treat the endings (and the whole ME3, in fact) like parts of the Expanded Universe in Star Wars: completely ignore it. For me the series ended with the destruction of the Collector base. Period. I can replay ME & ME2 to my heart's content, and even if I wanted to play ME3, I can't because I returned it two months ago.

 

You should try it, it's very cathartic. Haven't felt better since I refunded Dragon Age 2.

Heh, that'd be even better actually. Like one of those oldskool sci-fi shows where a rocket hits the earth and it's half way blowing up at the end of the show with the announcer saying "Will the Earth survive this brutal attack?! FIND OUT NEXT TIME!" and they never make another episode.

[stoffe]

In my mind, a plothole exists in that in the Arrival DLC,

 

You can't base the ending of the whole trilogy on something that might happen in the Arrival DLC though, since Shepard's participation in the Arrival scenario is optional. If you didn't play the DLC a squad of marines sent by Hackett carried out the mission instead in ME3 (getting wiped out in the process).

 

 

Do you know what happened to Saren Arterius and Jack Harper After being electrocuted by a Reaper artifact?

 

Going by what is said and mentioned in the games (and not any comics and novels), both these gentlemen also spent several months in close proximity to a Reaper (Inside Sovereign, and just upstairs from the embryo). Indoctrination is not a quick process, it is mentioned that it takes weeks or months to do properly. There is a Quick Indoctrination option as well, but using that the victim goes insane within a few days so it's not really an option for sleepers and long-term operatives, or a Shepard that seemingly remains herself 6 months later.

 

...like piles of bodies appearing out of nowhere around the conduit?

 

The conduit (if you mean the beam up to the Citadel) was a transporter beam meant to move organic material up to the Citadel for processing for use in Reaper construction. Thus it's not unreasonable IMO that husks etc continue to shovel up bodies, especially since a fair number of them just were produced nearby with the failed rush attack.

 

That's why I found it reasonable to postulate that it wasn't an attack beam, but an "Indoctrination Beam".

 

There is no such thing in established lore. See above.

[Taak Farst]

The conduit (if you mean the beam up to the Citadel) was a transporter beam meant to move organic material up to the Citadel for processing for use in Reaper construction. Thus it's not unreasonable IMO that husks etc continue to shovel up bodies, especially since a fair number of them just were produced nearby with the failed rush attack.

 

The bodies aren't there before Shepard is knocked unconscious. And they are al the same bodies over and over again. Ashley and Kaidan. Ashley is more obvious because of the Pink and White phoenix armour we see nowhere else in the trilogy. Evidence that it's a dream, because Shepard is guilty about Virmire.

A company that doesn't have time on their side wouldn't add this if it wasn't deliberate.

[Lynk Former]

A company that doesn't have time on their side reuses assets because it's cheaper and quicker to do so.

[DarthParametric]

It's less about time and more about the hardware restrictions of the consoles.

[Lynk Former]

It's less about hardware restrictions of the consoles and more about whoever it was who was in charge of that particular part of ME3 deciding it'd be funny to have a bunch of dead Ashley's and Kaiden's laying around.

[stoffe]

The bodies aren't there before Shepard is knocked unconscious. And they are al the same bodies over and over again. Ashley and Kaidan. Ashley is more obvious because of the Pink and White phoenix armour we see nowhere else in the trilogy. Evidence that it's a dream, because Shepard is guilty about Virmire.

A company that doesn't have time on their side wouldn't add this if it wasn't deliberate.

 

The husks you have to fight when Shepard drags herself into the beam wasn't there before you got knocked out either. They might be responsible for gathering up the bodies for beam transport.

 

As for re-using art assets, I doubt it was very high priority to give each individual corpse, that most players won't even notice, a unique appearance. Generic corpses are copypaste throughout the trilogy.

 

As for the white and pink armor (that Ashley isn't wearing in ME3 any more), I doubt the Systems Alliance would give each lowly infantrymen guarding backwater colonies unique and customized armor. Thus it would stand to reason that her armor was standard issue for SA troops of her rank and function, and that thus a lot more of those would be present on an Earth under attack.