23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Archonsg]

chomicze wrote...

@Archonsg

Both Patrick Weekes and Jessica Merizan said, that exploding Mass Relays do not cause systems destruction (so why it was like this in Arrival? Who knows...). Also reading through tweets, there was a statement, that noone starves to death (which keep me wondering, considering lack of dextro food on earth, and lack of FTL technology on most of quarian ships). Guess if you have high enough EMS you will be seeing "happy" extended ending, that will be more focused on characters that we cared about, and in destroy option, on yourself.

I also feel like all the good writing, that I've encountered through these three games suddenly vanished for the last 10 minutes. It makes me sad, and I start to believe, that this ending wasn't written and approved by whole squad, but just one or two executives to leave door open for next franchise.

Yeah, I saw those remarks by both Patrick and Jessica, but here is the rub, they say it wasn't catastropic but as far as I can tell, gives no real explanation as to why it is, other then plot armor or space magic, take your pick.

I had a very interesting discussion with someone else on this thread about the nature of explosions, structural strength and how things work in "real life" while trying to fit this into the Mass Effect world with kinetic barriers and mass effect fields.

Here's the link to my reasons why the law of physics would dictate superstructures with the Strength of a Mass Relay and their structural failure due to kinetic/momentum force is a really really a bad thing, that person came up with a reasonable counter scenario where it is possible to have the relays explode and not do any damage.


Long story short, he came up with the brilliant idea of a powerful singularity within the core of the Mass relay to either first weaken the structural strength of the Relays thus require a much lesser force or power in terms of kinetic / momentum energy release to blow the superstructure apart, or said Singularity was present during the explosion to help counteract the original (opposite force factor) force thus make it "weaker". I would lean towards the first option as it would make more sense.

However both instances would require a very visible indication of mater and light be "sucked in" towards the center of each Relay before and or during the mass relay detonation, at near or equal in strength of an nova (opposite and near equal negating force) which we do not see. So using occam's razor in this instance, would have to just go with the original premise that :

1) The relays exploded.
2) There was no singularity event prior or during detonation of mass relays
3) The rules of physics still dictate what and how much any release of kinetic / momentum energy can do

Thus it comes back to simple science (in a science-fiction work no less) to spell out just how much force an exploding relay does.

Then it all comes back to what is said after the fact.

Yes, the authors can say "Nope guys, this happened because we say so..." which they did, even contrary to what was presented, claim "artistic integrity", which they did as well, and those of us who do know enough to ask questions like "Didn't you guys say physics matter in this world you made?" and it all won't matter and can be ignored because plot armor is thicker than logic.

Modifié par Archonsg, 05 mai 2012 - 08:17 .

[ClixWizard]

Still here, still angry, still not spending any more money on Bioware products until the ending is changed.

[Gothic Saint]

If the extended cut dlc doesn't pull a miracle out of it's ass then I'm NEVER buying bioware games story games again. Why invest time and money in a game just so the "Artist" can F you in the A at the end of the game by outsourcing the story telling to China... I'll never trust a bioware adventure again. When I start to like my character I'll start to wonder,

"When are bioware gonna F over all my decisions and make all my playtime and investment in my character worthless? Is this ending gonna be a few different colours and 90% the same video?"

It's like if in gears of war3, If epic gave us an ending as bad as ME3 it would have ruined the whole series. But they did a good ending, Happy ending where the choices made mattered(you didn't make any of the choices but they still make sense)
So why is it that a game about massive fridge men shooting grubs can tell a better ending to their story than Bioware can with ME3? ME3 had the possibilty to have 25+ different endings with the MASSIVE variety of characters and choices made over 3 games. It's a bloody disgrace what bioware has done. I'm a big ME fan but I'm left sitting here wishing I never paid for ME1, ME2 and ME3. I wish I bought them for $5 pre owned a year after launch.

Bioware you blew it. Pathetic.

Thats directed at YOU "Casey Hudson"

Casey Hudson:
defenitions - Bioware videogames developer
- Fool
- The devil

[Redbelle]

Regarding some of the questions that arise during and after the ending I thought I'd pitch in..........

The Mass relay in The Arrival exploded when a asteroid packing more mass than the relay, (that's a guess but that was one big asteroid), collided with said relay. The energy involved was kinetic. The amount of energy required to move something of that mass is huge and seeing as we never see the engines shut down I'd speculate that the asteroid was in constant acceleration. So when the asteroid hit the relay it was packing alot of energy.

Relay's are made to handle enough energy to shoot a ship from one end of the galaxy to the other. When Normandy relays we see a power build up followed by power expenditure, i.e, Normandy transits from the relay. The transit indicates that the built up power has been used and the relay powers down to standby mode.

Back to the Arrival. The relay is not shown to be pumping power anywhere. It's all being contained by the relay and if to much energy is being stored and cannot be contained it will seek to escape. In this case a huge explosion.

In the ending we see alot of energy being fired from the citadel, (at least, I think it's energy), hit a relay that then starts spinning and building up in a way I've never seen and then.......... it fires that energy to the next relay. The firing of the energy is what I believe is critical to the argumanet that the relays didn't go up like the one in arrival. They've fired off a massive portion of the stored energy, may have been taxed beyond limits and damaged, and then went up but with a significantly smaller yield.........

The only reason I, and I believe others, think that the galaxy was smoked by the relays was that scene of the galaxy where we see relays going up with huge AoE when they went up. the AoE of those explosions was, I think, to big to suggest what I just described above. However, BW have confirmed the relays didn't destroy the galaxy so I'm putting that scene down to an oversight of game logic in the pursuit of a pretty cutscene...... which was really neat imho.

With that other matter of all the dextro's in the fleet eventually turning to cannibalism......... or something along those lines.......... While the fleets rations would eventually give out I would point out that, while a little worse for wear after the Reapers, the fleet still have doctors and scientists who could replicate emergency food rations for the surviving fleet. With all their science I find it difficult to concieve of a space race in a home system with facilities on Mars, and maybe Earth, depending on how charred it got, to make food rations. It would probably be paste like the Turians eat but as long as it has all the essential requirements they Dextro's could survive, all the while improved food production and distribution systems could be introduced.

Anyhow, the food is all specualtion on my part, but I think the relay's going up is positive food for thought.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 mai 2012 - 10:53 .

[Murvel88]

They say they are listening, and yet they tell us they won't change the ending but extend and clarify it. I think the community/fanbase has been very clear on it's opinion on that. Basically, they are listening but can't be bothered to give a care.
I can imagine this being BW/EA's careface:


I'm not holding my breath for EC, but if it turns out alright I might just change my mind about BW, not EA though.
(btw I love Clarkson)

[Thanatos144]

Who told you guys it was Harbingers beam that you run into?

[BLAHBLUE2001]

ClixWizard wrote...

Still here, still angry, still not spending any more money on Bioware products until the ending is changed.

[chomicze]

@ Thanatos

I think everyone knows it wasn't, it was Citadel... Harbringer was slightly to the right ;] Escaping and leaving potentially only way to stop him unprotected. -GENIUS-

EDIT: People mean Harbringer's beam, when they talk about laser destroying everyone on this last road, and it was Harbringer for sure.

Modifié par chomicze, 05 mai 2012 - 01:37 .

[Thanatos144]

chomicze wrote...

@ Thanatos

I think everyone knows it wasn't, it was Citadel... Harbringer was slightly to the right ;] Escaping and leaving potentially only way to stop him unprotected. -GENIUS-

I am just saying everyone keeps saying you ran into Harbingers beam I would love to know how they know this?

[chomicze]

First, when you run in this last section, you run into the blue Citadel's beam. But Harbringer arrives (if you want to know, how do we know it's Harbringer and not any other reaper - we know - it looks different) and starts to destroy everything that moves. Why am I even telling you how it looks? Did you play it to the end?

[Thanatos144]

chomicze wrote...

First, when you run in this last section, you run into the blue Citadel's beam. But Harbringer arrives (if you want to know, how do we know it's Harbringer and not any other reaper - we know - it looks different) and starts to destroy everything that moves. Why am I even telling you how it looks? Did you play it to the end?

LOL Are you serious?

[chomicze]

Then why are asking about running into Harbringer's beam?

[Thanatos144]

chomicze wrote...

Then why are asking about running into Harbringer's beam?

Cause the truth is people are assuming that it is harbingers beam.....And we all know what happens when you assume.

[chomicze]

Where is the assumption? We see Harbringer, and we see it's beam. Nothing to assume.

[Thanatos144]

chomicze wrote...

Where is the assumption? We see Harbringer, and we see it's beam. Nothing to assume.

Is harbinger wearing a name tag that I missed?

[Deliquesce]

Thanatos144 wrote...

chomicze wrote...

Where is the assumption? We see Harbringer, and we see it's beam. Nothing to assume.

Is harbinger wearing a name tag that I missed?

I thought I was the only one that missed the Harbinger nametag.  How did anyone know that was Harbinger?  Don't a lot of Sovereign class Reapers look similiar?

Case solved though; he must have been wearing one of those "HELLO, my name is ______" stickers.

[Edleen]

I for the happy end for Shepard, it should survive.

[3DandBeyond]

There actually are visual differences between Harbinger and Sovereign class reapers. Harbinger is also the oldest and largest of the reapers.

But, what does it matter? The reaper at the end could have been Bob.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

There actually are visual differences between Harbinger and Sovereign class reapers. Harbinger is also the oldest and largest of the reapers.

But, what does it matter? The reaper at the end could have been Bob.

it matters cause it means a DLC can have shepard killing Harbinger OR it matters cause aghain it takes something as fact that isnt so.

[3DandBeyond]

sbricca wrote...

I dont understand the part where the kid says: "The fact you are standing here, the first organic ever, proves it (you dont need hope), but is also proves my solution wont work anymore" 

Shepard is here because the child brought him there with the elevator..and what proves that? Or here in the citadel?
This proves that this cycle deserves to be saved?why?


To back in theme...i think if you choose "destruction" EDI and geth should be dead..i dont see EDI out of normandy with this ending, but with synthetic i do, with control i dont know, never choose that, it's to much opposite with Shepard
But Shepard should be dead too.... 

Yes, the Geth will die.  The kid says so if you saved the Geth, but won't if you didn't.  As for EDI-that's open to debate.  The "body" housing her would I think die, but what happens to her "consciousness"?  Perhaps that is truly her life-she merely used the body as a platform, but didn't live there.  The Mass Relays aren't synthetic life either, but get destroyed as does other reaper tech, we assume.

You see again so much of this relies on conjecture.  I've no problem with imagining things, but with this ending you chase one unknown and find another and chase that and so on.

Another assumption that you can make is that the Catalyst uses synthetic life very loosely.  We have no idea what it thinks synthetic life is except for what it tells us. 

It's existence seems synthetic based, so it may see anything synthetic as life.  I am not making this up wholly, but deriving it again from what the kid says to Shepard about the Destroy option.  There is no reason to point out that Shepard is also partly synthetic unless choosing to Destroy would mean these synthetic parts would also be destroyed.  Or is there?  The Catalyst tries to steer Shepard to NOT choose Destroy, but then this makes it all even stupider.  Others have said it.  Why would there be a Destroy option if he didn't want you to use it?

[3DandBeyond]

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

There actually are visual differences between Harbinger and Sovereign class reapers. Harbinger is also the oldest and largest of the reapers.

But, what does it matter? The reaper at the end could have been Bob.

it matters cause it means a DLC can have shepard killing Harbinger OR it matters cause aghain it takes something as fact that isnt so.

Even if the reaper at the end is not Harbinger, there could still be DLC with Shepard killing Harbinger.

And, I'm sorry whether or not that is Harbinger is a rather minor point.  It's a big bad reaper shooting nasty things.

A lot of things are taken as fact in order to explain the ending once you get past big bad Bob, but some people have no problem with that.  Now they want to pick on minutiae.  The name of a reaper needs to be factually based but all the hogwash up on the Citadel doesn't.  That's rich.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 05 mai 2012 - 03:45 .

[chomicze]

@3DandBeyond

That's what I'm talking about, there are few cinematics that shows us Harbinger and it is the oldest and biggest reaper, there is little color difference etc. But you're also right. It can be Bob or Steve, or CaseyHudson reaper. Doesn't change antyhing.

[Thanatos144]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Thanatos144 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

There actually are visual differences between Harbinger and Sovereign class reapers. Harbinger is also the oldest and largest of the reapers.

But, what does it matter? The reaper at the end could have been Bob.

it matters cause it means a DLC can have shepard killing Harbinger OR it matters cause aghain it takes something as fact that isnt so.

Even if the reaper at the end is not Harbinger, there could still be DLC with Shepard killing Harbinger.

And, I'm sorry whether or not that is Harbinger is a rather minor point.  It's a big bad reaper shooting nasty things.

A lot of things are taken as fact in order to explain the ending once you get past big bad Bob, but some people have no problem with that.  Now they want to pick on minutiae.  The name of a reaper needs to be factually based but all the hogwash up on the Citadel doesn't.  That's rich.

No actually very little in the game is taken for fact that isn't...But
tons from the hater crowd is. Like it is taken as fact that the species around the earth will start killing each other cause they are
stranded.......Like they are all to stupid to realize they would need
each other to make it home....Or that The relays would destroy the
galaxy even though asteroids didn't crash into them.....

Modifié par Thanatos144, 05 mai 2012 - 03:53 .

[chomicze]

It is like I saide before, it opens too much questions - and we don't have any answers. And it goes to arguing about bs. The only fact is, that the ending is poorly written, and every single proffesional writer will agree.
Waiting for EC, hoping it will bring answers and shows all these characters that I care about in my gameplay and my decisions will be honoured. No sense of further discussion.

[sbricca]

3DandBeyond wrote...
  The Catalyst tries to steer Shepard to NOT choose Destroy, but then this makes it all even stupider.  Others have said it.  Why would there be a Destroy option if he didn't want you to use it?

I agree...in this case the IT should work very well.....
I tried to understand the logic behind this ABC ending if it's true...i've played ending many times, i offered a coffee to the marauder shield too, but nothing, i cant find this ending satisfying, only with IT it should be acceptable, and only with a ME4 or a big big big DLC