Technically, it is only to get "better" endings (now with the Extended Cut DLC). But I think it has something to with with Priority: Earth, I think someone here knows better than me. =P Orbrital
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about, but war assets are the result of BW's ambitious idea of making most choices and characters from the previous games to have an influence on the galactic war. Turning people into numbers is the solution BW came up with. Mitranim
- Pretty much, you nailed it there. Orbrital
Well, video games are, at their very core, systems. If you can't quantify something, you can't build a system out of it. If you can't build a system from it, you certainly can't turn it into a game. The War Assets were clearly BW 's approach to quantifying three games worth of plot variables and building a coherent system around them. Terminator-HIX
The point of the War Assets is the following:
The War Assets serve as your Galactic Armada, starting with the remains of the Systems Alliance military and ending with the whatever asset you find last. The more you find the assets, the stronger you make that armada and the higher chance you get for a perfect ending. BioWare did a great job on it, it was kind of intense to amass every single asset of the Galaxy with the Reapers always chasing me down. Captain John vas Normandy (talk)
- Also, your War Assests determine whether your squadmates on the ground with you when you charge towards the beam on Earth die or get rescued by the Normandy. Theadoringfan22 (talk)
- In addition to the military strength you gather, War Assets also represent the materials you've gathered to improve the armada and the resources you have for the construction of the Crucible. These things sensibly tie into how well the final battle and the activation of the Crucible goes. High military strength not only means that the battle goes better (your squadmates don't die, the fleet fighting the Reapers manages to hold out against them) but also means that the Crucible would be better guarded, reducing damage that would impair its functionality. The more resources and people you have working on the Crucible, the better its functionality and the less likely a malfunction becomes. LilyheartsLiara (talk)
It's just sad how they have both choices equalling a similar war asset total. If you killed or saved the heretics in 2 equals out when you recruit both quarian and geth in 3. The same with saving or letting the council die gives you either the Destiny Ascension or a beefy Alliance Fleet. Both the widely considered "good" choice, and the "bad" choice have almost no effect on the sway of assets. Saving people in the suicide mission on 2 nets you 25 points per, but some of the random items you scavenge from the map in 3 equal 25 or more. The Dark Energy Dissertation of Conrad, that takes TONS of flags and 3 games of choices only nets you 5 points.... yet if you play multiplayer for an hour or two and promote your character you get 10 war assets for each promotion. The fact both choices end up the same removes any "poor" choices throughout the series and when you're replaying the game you have to struggle in order to try and gimp yourself in War Assets. KaedAemoh (talk)
- Not all choices have both outcomes being "good", depending on previous choices. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head, saving the fake rachni queen if you killed the queen in ME1 and sabotaging the genophage cure if Wrex is the leader of the krogan, will actually result in a net loss of Effective Military Strength. LilyheartsLiara (talk)
^ It's done that way to discourage the idea of there being "right" or "wrong" decisions to make; BioWare's usual philosophy for player choices is "not better or worse, but different". Popular doesn't automatically mean right. There's no real point in giving the players all these choices to make if you get punished for half of them; besides the implications of railroading, negative reinforcement like that only serves to discourage gameplay behaviours (exploring different options and seeing what the consequences are)that are supposed to add to the series' appeal. To avoid excessively punishing people for particular decisions, whether it be killing people off or just coming to the series late, the devs had to dial down the impact of the individual choices. You don't have to agree with it, and no one will blame you if you don't, but I can sort of understand what they were trying to do.
And then, of course, you have the issue of scale. If a full Alliance fleet is worth 90, and you have a single person worth 25, you'd think that'd convey the idea that this particular person is putting in a significant individual effort. And the Dark Energy Dissertation is, for all intents and purposes, a bunch of theories put on paper. Sure, it helps, but that on its own wouldn't be a terribly big boon for a project on the scale of the Crucible. Of course, the idea that "every little bit counts" is driven home throughout the game.
As for the last point, not many game designers would factor in the possibility of players screwing up on purpose, just throwing that out there... Terminator-HIX
- The other problem with the Dark Energy Dissertation is that it's something that a significant chunk of the player base (people who play the game on a PS3, and mostly likely the people who play on the upcoming Wii version as well) are completely cut off from. It was bad enough in ME2 that you completely missed two quests on Ilos, one of which was the one required to trigger one of the vendor discounts on that planet, so making that loss hit gameplay even more would be just mean. 6thLyranGuard (talk)