23455 réponses à ce sujet

[daveyeisley]

Heres another one:

[Majin Paul]

 I thought Mass Effect 3 was amazing, as for favourite moments in the game, I'd have to say the mission which takes you through the Geth history, that mission alone made the Geth a more likable race, though there are many more moments which I love in the game, now I'm just hoping the EC will give a lot more closure and information about the Reaper War aftermath, because that would perfect the game imo.

[Uber Rod]

I think the core of the matter is that, as consumers, we need to take a stand against poor writing and shoddy execution of a game.

Yes, we got really invested in the game/story/characters and are upset by the bad writing. But beyond this we need to stand up to game companies and say "We will not accept crappy quality games." The industry has evolved to a point where you can't just half-ass it anymore and expect to let things slide.

[3DandBeyond]

To paraphrase Zaeed, "Now let's go be G-D heroes." It's sad to think that a real hero was wasted and in the end used to seemingly explain all this away as if it were some bedtime story.

The voice of the Stargazer, Buzz Aldrin, second man on the moon. He and the others went there riding a ball of fire slingshot and had no idea if they'd make it back again. In fact, they landed on the moon not quite where they were "supposed" to, but had to because the lunar lander was almost out of fuel. They were all heroes and I think Buzz Aldrin was misused.

I thought it was great, the use of the Aldrin name within the game for Aldrin Electronics (I think it was), but it seemed trivial at the end. And of course it was inspired using the name of Shepard which resonates with many of us older Americans-the name evokes images of bravery in the astronaut but also the character of Shepard was really herding sheep. Inspired.

Inspirational ideas, inspirational characters, inspirational voice acting demanded an inspirational ending. That is why happy should be a possibility.

Uber Rod wrote...

I think the core of the matter is that,
as consumers, we need to take a stand against poor writing and shoddy
execution of a game.

Yes, we got really invested in the
game/story/characters and are upset by the bad writing. But beyond this
we need to stand up to game companies and say "We will not accept crappy
quality games." The industry has evolved to a point where you can't
just half-ass it anymore and expect to let things slide.

This is exactly right.  Many games now are released in a beta testing stage.  I actually have another game that I played quite a lot that was broken from the start-I had preordered it and was guaranteed release day deliver.  They screwed up and didn't distribute enough, didn't get it as promised.  Beyond that a core element (online play) of the game was broken (online needed for the game) and they finally released a patch, first in Japan.  That broke it further, and quite out of character for the Japanese, caused an angry stir.  The Japanese players protested that they were being used as beta testers.  The game eventually got partly fixed, but never played as it was advertised it would and after I finished it, I was finished with it.

This is an escalating trend brought on by unrealistic or unfulfilled promises, unrealistic release dates, and sometimes DLC considerations-most times there are DLC considerations.  I am not really sure where fans fit into the equation, but I think they are totally forgetting what should be the real deal.  Create the best quality product you can, especially when you already have a fan base, and it will sell.  It's more expensive to fix something done wrong than to make it "right" in the first place.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[daveyeisley]

Another thing, as I think back to all the posts I have read...

There are some who say they were not upset by the ending, some who said they were satisfied, some who said they liked it. The latter heavily in the minority compared to the former two. Still very few from what I have seen, but I admit I haven't gone through every thread.

In all the comments of this nature, however, I have yet to see (that I can recall) a single person say that it was awesome.... or that there were no issues whatsoever.

Just makes me think... I am sure everyone can agree there was a LOT of room for improvement.... and furthermore, that Bioware of all companies, should have done better.

[3DandBeyond]

daveyeisley wrote...

Another thing, as I think back to all the posts I have read...

There are some who say they were not upset by the ending, some who said they were satisfied, some who said they liked it. The latter heavily in the minority compared to the former two. Still very few from what I have seen, but I admit I haven't gone through every thread.

In all the comments of this nature, however, I have yet to see (that I can recall) a single person say that it was awesome.... or that there were no issues whatsoever.

Just makes me think... I am sure everyone can agree there was a LOT of room for improvement.... and furthermore, that Bioware of all companies, should have done better.

This is exactly right-usually what people will say is the ending isn't that bad, or it's ok, or there are things that don't make sense and that maybe could be changed, but they won't so I don't care.  Well, I wonder how that translates to other things.  This is a commodity like any other.  I don't buy things so that I can get something that is just ok or that I mostly like or that I end up not caring about.  I don't love everything I buy, but I expect to get full value.  A bad ending to 3 great games isn't full value.

[Archonsg]

Redbelle wrote...

Verner is way better than the SC because......... you can shoot him. In the foot.

Would have paid good credits just to see Liara's father slap a singularity on his ass too. But alas, there wasn't a "Go ahead, I'll cover you." option after she mentions that damages comes out of her pay.

[Holger1405]

Took some time, sorry for this.
Because you are referring to the entity I call Star Child as Catalyst I will do the same. Yours is the in game name and so it is more accurate anyway.

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...

[quote]Holger1405 wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]Holger1405 wrote..
Second, the Reapers didn't kill everyone. They erase only advanced organic species, so this organic species can't create synthetic life that, in the end, according to Star Child's logic, will destroy every Organic species and in doing so, erase all organic live from the galaxy.  
[/quote]
So they're not killing organic life because they're only killing SOME organic life? Sorry, but that's illogical.[/quote]
O fcourse the killing organic life, but only advanced Organic life. You stated that the Reapers "trying to kill everyone" and I contradict this statement.
[/quote]
Eventually, they kill everyone. Sure, they might spare primitive organics at some point (as they did humans in the last cycle), but they still intend to keep on harvesting any and every organic species until the universe ends. The timeframe is irrelevant, because they still kill ALL organics. For any given organic species, under the Reapers, that organic species will be killed. There is no contradiction.  [/quote]

True of course, but what is the point? Assuming that Catalyst's logic is correct, other Synthetics will exterminate every Organic species definitely. If you belief in this logic, and Catalyst obvious beliefs in his own logic, than his "solution" is a improvement, because Organic species still could develop in any cycle, over long periods of time and many generations, until the Reaper attack.

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]Holger1405 wrote..
This is why your statement that the Repars are "the very cause of the problem that they claim to be fixing" is wrong, and, much more important, THIS is the whole Point of Star Child.

Star Child's logic determinate the action of the Reapers. In his logic, advanced Organic life must be "Harvested" so they will not create Synthetic life,because these Synthetics will ultimately rebel against their creators, and then wipe out ALL Organic live. The Reapers, only attacking advanced Organic civilization, are his "Solution."
[/quote]

I understand his logic just fine. It's just that the actions of the Reapers undermine this. They are they "control" that kills organic life to stop other synthetics from killing organic life. Yet we are given no proof or basis for this except a vague allusion that the Reapers were created to combat the first synthetics that verged on killing off organic life.

The only real examples we do have of synthetics are the Geth and EDI, and both of those are capable of living peacefully with organics. The series undermines the very premise on which the ending is based. The only synthetic life (if it is actually synthetic life) that is systematically eradicating organic life is the Reapers. i.e. They are the problem. They kill organics. They are not solving anything. [/quote]

I like to think that you are right about EDI and the Geth (although there are other examples for the danger of synthetic life to organics. Javik gave one, Edi to be a rouge AI at first, are one and the many VI's on a Killing spree also)  and I also agree that the Reapers are not solving anything, because I consider Catalyst's logic as wrong, his "assumptions" as unsound and the Reapers as atrocity.
But I disagree about that "the series undermines the very premise on which the ending is based", in my opinion, the only thing the Series is undermining, is Catalyst's logic.

And this is the important point. Imho it is not necessary that Catalyst's logic has to be right, to set the premise for the ending, or even the entire Mass Effect saga.  The only thing which is necessary is that the Player accepts that Star Child beliefs in his logic.

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]Holger1405 wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]Holger1405 wrote...
Why do you think that synthesis is suppose to be the optimal ending? I think it is up to the Player to decide which ending is optimal for her/him.
[/quote]
By game mechanics and the dialogue presented to the player. Synthesis is the "hardest" ending to achieve, and is presented by the game as being "the best". Whether players believe that is something else, but that is the logic as provided by the game/designers. [/quote]
In my Opinion is Destruction with Shepard surviving the hardest ending to achieve. Also I never got the feeling that the Game a.k.a Bioware pushed me in a direction regarding the final choice.
[/quote]
Given that ending is only possible as a sort of "Easter Egg" through playing MP, and BioWare insist that the "best ending" is available without playing multiplayer,  synthesis is presented as the "best" ending.  At every step in the
Catalyst's dialogue, it suggests this. It implies that Destroy will lead to the eradication of organics, Control will merely acts as a "protector" for when things go bad, but that Synthesis is the final evolution. The dialogue actively pushes the player towards the synthesis option when it is made available to them. [/quote]

The EMS problem is, as a matter of fact and although pretty simple to fix with Gibbed (not for PS2 Players, I know.) or the IPhone App, my greatest issue with ME3. Still, I don't think that Bioware's  statement about the "best ending" was related to, or in favor of, the Synthesis ending.
As for Catalyst's dialog. It may be that I was to committed to MY Shepard's goal, which was to eradicate the Reapers, so that I didn't notice that. Still, no Player is bound to follow Catalyst's logic, everyone can make up her/his own mind.  

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
[quote]Holger1405 wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Control IS the status quo. Destroy is the state that led to the creation of the status quo. These are known abd states according to the child's logic.  The fact that they are offered is illogical based on the premise.
[/quote]
Again, only when you consider Star child's logic as fact and his predictions as inevitable. Imho the Cycle is the status quo, and Control as well as Destruction contradict this status quo. Destruction for obviously reasons, Control because the Controller is changed.  
 [/quote]
The cycle exists as a result of the Control - the Reapers, which are the "protectors" so organics don't get wiped out by synthetics. The Star Child says his solution is flawed - but somehow justifies putting someone ELSE in control. Retaining the Reapers as synthetic "guardians" controlled by Shepard still means that there is a single overlord
presence responsible for taking care of the galaxy - a state which has just been proven to be flawed.

Offering this solution is pointless because it is a known flawed state according to the logic of the Catalyst.


No Reapers (which is what we get from Destroy) is what came before - which is what led to the creation of the Reapers/cycle. Something led to the creation of the Reapers, presumably from the little dialogue we are given, this came about as a result of the near eradication of organic life by synthetics. Thus the Reapers were created as a solution to this flawed state.

Offering this solution is pointless because it is a known flawed stated according to the logic of the Catalyst

Two of the three options I am being presented are illogical based on the logic of the Catalyst. (There is no logic behind the third option, so I'm not even going to go there) Why are they being offered? [/quote]

In an imperfect universe, every solution would be imperfect.  So I don't think that it is in the power of the Catalyst (or Bioware) to  give us a perfect solution.
But I see that you are referring to the reasons why the Catalyst offering this solutions in the First place, clearly contradicting his own logic.

The Catalyst stated: "the Crucible changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen." That, imho, means that this "new possibility's" are created by the Crucible not the Catalyst and so are not bound to the Catalyst logic.

About the control ending. You are right again when you say that one Overlord is replaced by another, but this new overlord is the very Person who fought the Reapers so hard. When someone Control something, it is always crucial who is the controller, what is his/her goal whit the Power it's giving to her/him. Of course it's still flawed, but as I stated before, there is no Perfect solution in an Imperfect universe.
On a side note, the Control ending explains best why I prefer that Bioware didn't give a explanation to everything. Now every Player who choose Control can use is own imagination what she/he is doing with this Power. Using the Reapers as ace if one day synthetics are trying to wipe out the Organics, or using them to control the galaxy for mankind as TIM would, or simply flying them into the sun... etcetera.  
 
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I would like to agree that Destroy is my favoured option, but the problem is that it's still a shallow and worthless ending. This choice is the closest thing the player has to rejecting the premise provided by the Catalyst, but in doing so undermines that choice because they kill off the synthetic beings (Geth/EDI) that disprove it.  It is thematically inconsistent and thus as meaningless as either of the other two endings. [/quote]

Well I have my own thoughts about EDI, but that would be a complete different discussion.
So, as I stated before in our discussion, I would like to have a choice not to killing the Geth. I think that Bioware didn't included that because A.) in Control or Synthesis Shepard dies and they thought it would be a too easy choice without that , B.) they are committed to the idea of a Bittersweet ending, C.)   They hate the Geth. (THAT was a Joke.)

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Again, I will reiterate that all three choices offered are illogical as presented, and thematically inconsistent with the rest of the series and ending.
[/quote]

And I still see that different.

[Holger1405]

Archonsg wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

Paradox711 wrote...
Bethesda

[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]

 

@holger1405 



But seriously, don't you think that it is a sad state of affairs that people are THINIKING of Bethesda when thinking of "brilliant RPG" games? 

Here's something that is coming from Bethesda though, and yes.... it looks to be fracking awesome.
Dishonored Debut Trailer

Gives you food for thought.

I did enjoyed every Bethesda Game so far, (OK, Daggerfall was a nightmare,  but not because it is a bad Game, but it is simple WAY to big. )

But you are right, Bioware use to be the best of the best. Imho that didn't changed.  

I didn't Play DA2 so I can commentate on that, but ME3 is imho a Masterpiece. Even when you hate the endings, the game itself is pretty good.

Modifié par Holger1405, 11 mai 2012 - 02:07 .

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

groaaaa wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

I still wonder why some people are so against a happy ending, as if it'll take away any value of the sad ending they value so much. Oh wait, it does, doesn't it? Why, because no one would want a dismal ending if they had a choice?

So, here's the rub, if those of you are so set on a sad ending, why not just play towards that ending and let the rest of us who want a happier end for Shepard and crew have ours? It is too bad that Bioware, knowing this, that few if any would want to choose such a sad end for Shepard, forced the issue by removing all choices and ability of the player to effect change in game towards that happy ending.
Choices and ability that the previous installment allowed.

Bioware should be ashamed. Those of you who selfishly cling to the sad ending as the only choice because having any other would undervalue yours should be too.

I wouldnt go far as to say they are clinging to a sad ending I think its just theyve been led to believe its a "artistic" ending. I personally think this is NOT true and its a sad example of bioware being pushed for time and having its original ending leaked with the script resulting in the issues we are dealing with today. I absolutely despise the people who leaked the script for having a huge hand in the only solid conclusion being a few seconds of shepard breathing under rubble. Indoctrination theory for the new ending.

I do think the leaked script had something to do with what got released.

I think what Archonsg is pointing to is fans that think the only valid ending is one where Shepard sacrifices everything and what Bioware has created in the no win sorta win ending. 

The thing is Bioware could have created some clearly delineated sacrificial and everybody survives endings, with some gray areas in between and there would be no disagreement here.

But, I think it's even worse.  It isn't just sad or happy-that could have been done and some say was done (I don't think so).  It was that the ending belonged more in a David Lynch movie than in a story rich Star Wars-esque video game.  Now, many feel that David Lynch movies are artistic (incomprehensible), but if so when you go to one, you know what you are getting.  You don't expect it as an ending for a video game like this. 

And I've made the mistake of watching David Lynch movies.  The best feeling I've had at the end was confusion.  The worst was revulsion and disgust.  Yep, good for video games.

That is correct.

I keep seeing "...it's been said and said again, the Reapers can't be beat...," or "...conventional means cannot defeat..." and in every reasoning, fans who cannot see Shepard come out of this other then in sacrifice, which by the way, he did not, as what happened was more suicide than sacrifice, but that's for another discussion, fans who see no way out other than sacrifice are those who latched on to the Idea that the reapers cannot be beat.

This I suspect was in part the intent of the writers. To set up an almost impossible scenario for Shepard and crew. Now, where it gets interesting and it seems that most people who have latched on to this defeatist idea have missed, is that the writers have also put in an unconventional means and hope to defeat the reapers.

Yes. The Crucible.
Now, here is where it kinda fell apart. As someone else very early had stated, they made this not as a Protean artifact but one that some other ancient race planned, but never quite finished and other races through the cycles picked up and "improved" on. As that previous poster pointed out it would be like throughout the ages, from as early as when men can write and do calculus, each generation is given a plan to make oh... Say a Nuclear Reactor and not knowing what the hell they got, "improved" on it till our present day, with a working plan for a working plant. Huh? What?

Should have just kept it simple. Kept it Protean who figured out what the citadel was, the conduit and now came up of a way to disable the reapers.

The Catylst.
3dandbeyond, you remember when I said that they should have made that last requirement a living mind? The reason is from a game's point of view, this now allows for ... PLAYER'S CHOICE...his or her mind is now driving the device as well as give the the player the ability to fight Harbinger in a virtual boss fight. Mind against AI. I can think of no other way that would not seem ridiculous (Shepard face off Harbinger with an Assualt / Sniper rifle ... yeah right) and this would also allow for squad members should they be plugged in with Shepard to assist.

Thus. As the Catylst, Shepard could defeat Harbinger, and in the process, gain control via the Citadel, Reaper forces primary functions. Ranging from total shutdown to just having capital ship shields go out would swing a "hopeless" battle into one the Victory Fleet could win. And this was brought about by UNCONVENTIONAL MEANS.

Sacrifice.
Shepard would not get off easy though, nor those with him on that last mission. Instead of EMS, which would mean NOTHING in the context of the battle Shepard is fighting, we'd look as squad member loyalty and emotional investment.
Yup, how much your squad care for you determines how you succeed and if you or anyone else dies.

Example, if you didn't bring your love interest with you, and a neutral squad member who has no loyalty ties with you, Shepard dies.

Your LI will be your shield and suffer mental and or physical damage. Shepard lives but implants are damaged and he or she has 30-50 years left to live instead of another 100 or so. Your other squad mate face possible death, depending on if your combat skills. (it is still a shooting game, after all)

But that is how I see it could have worked out.
And why I disagree with those who think, a death sacrifice is the only way to go.
 
 
 
 ps: please excuse spelling / formatting errors, posting from my phone
 

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 mai 2012 - 03:10 .

[Archonsg]

Deleted "quote" mis-edit post

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 mai 2012 - 02:42 .

[Archonsg]

Oh and one last thing about "sad endings / sacrifice a must when faced with impossible odds otherwise it'll feel hollow..."
I have one word for them. "Avengers".

Go watch. And tell me that is not the way to pull of a "heroic" (excuse the pun) ending with sacrifice and keeping everything on the up note at the end.
Is it too late for Bioware to get Joss Whedon aboard?

[Holger1405]

Paradox711 wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

Paradox711 wrote...
Bethesda

 

Haha, thanks for that! You can tell what else ive been playing/reading about.

Yes I can.  So far I wasn't able to Play Skyrim due to collision risk. (with my Family, friends and Work... ) 

[Holger1405]

Archonsg wrote...

Oh and one last thing about "sad endings / sacrifice a must when faced with impossible odds otherwise it'll feel hollow..."
I have one word for them. "Avengers".

Go watch. And tell me that is not the way to pull of a "heroic" (excuse the pun) ending with sacrifice and keeping everything on the up note at the end.
Is it too late for Bioware to get Joss Whedon aboard?

Ok, admitted, Joss Whedon could do it better. 

[Archonsg]

Holger1405 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Oh and one last thing about "sad endings / sacrifice a must when faced with impossible odds otherwise it'll feel hollow..."
I have one word for them. "Avengers".

Go watch. And tell me that is not the way to pull of a "heroic" (excuse the pun) ending with sacrifice and keeping everything on the up note at the end.
Is it too late for Bioware to get Joss Whedon aboard?

Ok, admitted, Joss Whedon could do it better. 

We may not agree on many things but I am glad that, here, we do.

[darkway1]

To think if you buy mass3 on xbox you'll need xbox gold membership to use multiplayer......if you don't have gold then multiplayer is not an option and your left with an unplayable game.....stuck in the nightmare loop at the end,this is not acceptable,real crappy game design.

[Benchpress610]

Archonsg wrote...

Oh and one last thing about "sad endings / sacrifice a must when faced with impossible odds otherwise it'll feel hollow..."
I have one word for them. "Avengers".

Go watch. And tell me that is not the way to pull of a "heroic" (excuse the pun) ending with sacrifice and keeping everything on the up note at the end.
Is it too late for Bioware to get Joss Whedon aboard?

He also wrote/created Firefly and Serenity one of my favorite SF TV series/movies. Actually Mal Reynolds is not much different than Shepard

Modifié par Benchpress610, 11 mai 2012 - 03:49 .

[Siansonea]

Hmmm, 800 page thread, with "we are listening" in the title.

Exactly ONE BioWare representative weighing in, and it's the OP. And it's Chris Priestly, who isn't even on the dev team.

Hmmmm. Anyone else feel like this isn't really a "we are listening" thread?

[Archonsg]

Benchpress610 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

Oh and one last thing about "sad endings / sacrifice a must when faced with impossible odds otherwise it'll feel hollow..."
I have one word for them. "Avengers".

Go watch. And tell me that is not the way to pull of a "heroic" (excuse the pun) ending with sacrifice and keeping everything on the up note at the end.
Is it too late for Bioware to get Joss Whedon aboard?

He also wrote/created Firefly and Serenity one of my favorite SF TV series/movies. Actually Mal Reynolds is not much different than Shepard

I know.
I'd wear my browns too if that helps.
Love his work, well, him and JMS of Babylon5.
 
 

[Archonsg]

Siansonea II wrote...

Hmmm, 800 page thread, with "we are listening" in the title.

Exactly ONE BioWare representative weighing in, and it's the OP. And it's Chris Priestly, who isn't even on the dev team.

Hmmmm. Anyone else feel like this isn't really a "we are listening" thread?

Nah.
Most of us have known for a long time that this was the "bit.ch" thread made to keep it all in one place.

Still, we post in hopes that they are actually honest to god listening.

 

[Jammy74]

Siansonea II wrote...

Hmmm, 800 page thread, with "we are listening" in the title.

Exactly ONE BioWare representative weighing in, and it's the OP. And it's Chris Priestly, who isn't even on the dev team.

Hmmmm. Anyone else feel like this isn't really a "we are listening" thread?

Possibly not....but regardless, I think Bioware have got the idea that as a whole, Mass Effect fans are not altogether pleased with the end of ME3.  It's been subtle, but I think they've picked up on it

[darkway1]

Siansonea II wrote...

Hmmm, 800 page thread, with "we are listening" in the title.

Exactly ONE BioWare representative weighing in, and it's the OP. And it's Chris Priestly, who isn't even on the dev team.

Hmmmm. Anyone else feel like this isn't really a "we are listening" thread?

Nah they ain't listening to anything.....just a thread created to let people vent.......the point of the game was to get you to buy it......you bought it,JOB DONE.

[Benchpress610]

darkway1 wrote...

To think if you buy mass3 on xbox you'll need xbox gold membership to use multiplayer......if you don't have gold then multiplayer is not an option and your left with an unplayable game.....stuck in the nightmare loop at the end,this is not acceptable,real crappy game design.

Boy, am I glad I play on PC...I don't have to pay subscription. All I need is a decent Internet connection...OK, let me shut up, I don't want to give them any ideas....

[3DandBeyond]

Archonsg wrote...

That is correct.

I keep seeing "...it's been said and said again, the Reapers can't be beat...," or "...conventional means cannot defeat..." and in every reasoning, fans who cannot see Shepard come out of this other then in sacrifice, which by the way, he did not, as what happened was more suicide than sacrifice, but that's for another discussion, fans who see no way out other than sacrifice are those who latched on to the Idea that the reapers cannot be beat.

This I suspect was in part the intent of the writers. To set up an almost impossible scenario for Shepard and crew. Now, where it gets interesting and it seems that most people who have latched on to this defeatist idea have missed, is that the writers have also put in an unconventional means and hope to defeat the reapers.

Yes. The Crucible.
Now, here is where it kinda fell apart. As someone else very early had stated, they made this not as a Protean artifact but one that some other ancient race planned, but never quite finished and other races through the cycles picked up and "improved" on. As that previous poster pointed out it would be like throughout the ages, from as early as when men can write and do calculus, each generation is given a plan to make oh... Say a Nuclear Reactor and not knowing what the hell they got, "improved" on it till our present day, with a working plan for a working plant. Huh? What?

Should have just kept it simple. Kept it Protean who figured out what the citadel was, the conduit and now came up of a way to disable the reapers.

The Catylst.
3dandbeyond, you remember when I said that they should have made that last requirement a living mind? The reason is from a game's point of view, this now allows for ... PLAYER'S CHOICE...his or her mind is now driving the device as well as give the the player the ability to fight Harbinger in a virtual boss fight. Mind against AI. I can think of no other way that would not seem ridiculous (Shepard face off Harbinger with an Assualt / Sniper rifle ... yeah right) and this would also allow for squad members should they be plugged in with Shepard to assist.

Thus. As the Catylst, Shepard could defeat Harbinger, and in the process, gain control via the Citadel, Reaper forces primary functions. Ranging from total shutdown to just having capital ship shields go out would swing a "hopeless" battle into one the Victory Fleet could win. And this was brought about by UNCONVENTIONAL MEANS.

Sacrifice.
Shepard would not get off easy though, nor those with him on that last mission. Instead of EMS, which would mean NOTHING in the context of the battle Shepard is fighting, we'd look as squad member loyalty and emotional investment.
Yup, how much your squad care for you determines how you succeed and if you or anyone else dies.

Example, if you didn't bring your love interest with you, and a neutral squad member who has no loyalty ties with you, Shepard dies.

Your LI will be your shield and suffer mental and or physical damage. Shepard lives but implants are damaged and he or she has 30-50 years left to live instead of another 100 or so. Your other squad mate face possible death, depending on if your combat skills. (it is still a shooting game, after all)

But that is how I see it could have worked out.
And why I disagree with those who think, a death sacrifice is the only way to go.
 
 
 
 ps: please excuse spelling / formatting errors, posting from my phone
 

You know your living mind idea is actually something that I used rather simplistically in my fan fiction.  It's not fully fleshed out and was not something I stole from you as an idea-I think I wrote this before your post, but my ancient brain sometimes subconsciously steals ideas, but anyway...  I don't think you'd judge me too harshly if I more fully utilized your idea, but I used as more Shepard getting near the conduit to the Citadel and then her consciousness making the trip.

It amazes me that we as human beings believe so wholeheartedly in the idea of happiness and love as goals and life as the be all and end all.  There are quotes, "where there is life, there is hope", in the US Declaration of Independence-pursuit of happiness.  We live to be happy and to love and to live on.  But, some of us think it's trite in literature, movies, art, and now in that last bastion of fun for fun's sake, gaming.

I will reiterate: for me, happy endings are no less genuine, authentic, nor artistic than the "some gave all" kind of ending.  Ask any soldier if it's way better to give your life than it is to come home to your family and ask which kind of thing is more inspiring, sacrificing your life for a nobel cause or fighting for that nobel cause, winning, and returning home, and I know what the answer will be.  They hurt when even one gives all.  There's more than enough of this real hurt in real life. 

There is far more inspiration and heartfelt satisfaction to be gained in an ending that creates this triumph over overwhelming adversity, than there is in requiring the hero sacrifice all to achieve success.  In short, the heart and soul is more fulfilled when good wins out fully over evil.  Sacrifices, even when necessary are demoralizing.  That's why they are avoided.

I say that knowing full well that there are others out there that want to see Shepard burn up or blow up in the ultimate act of bravery.  But, one does not preclude the other.  I just don't see a happy, riding off into the sunset kind of ending as any less genuine than a sacrificial one.  In fact, I see it as more genuine, more what you want from a game and from entertainment.  I can watch the news or actually look at true life and stories of bravery and sacrifice that exist there.  i want to win video games.  And since you are Shepard (I am Shepard), I don't win if Shepard dies. 

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Archonsg wrote...

That is correct.

I keep seeing "...it's been said and said again, the Reapers can't be beat...," or "...conventional means cannot defeat..." and in every reasoning, fans who cannot see Shepard come out of this other then in sacrifice, which by the way, he did not, as what happened was more suicide than sacrifice, but that's for another discussion, fans who see no way out other than sacrifice are those who latched on to the Idea that the reapers cannot be beat.

This I suspect was in part the intent of the writers. To set up an almost impossible scenario for Shepard and crew. Now, where it gets interesting and it seems that most people who have latched on to this defeatist idea have missed, is that the writers have also put in an unconventional means and hope to defeat the reapers.

Yes. The Crucible.
Now, here is where it kinda fell apart. As someone else very early had stated, they made this not as a Protean artifact but one that some other ancient race planned, but never quite finished and other races through the cycles picked up and "improved" on. As that previous poster pointed out it would be like throughout the ages, from as early as when men can write and do calculus, each generation is given a plan to make oh... Say a Nuclear Reactor and not knowing what the hell they got, "improved" on it till our present day, with a working plan for a working plant. Huh? What?

Should have just kept it simple. Kept it Protean who figured out what the citadel was, the conduit and now came up of a way to disable the reapers.

The Catylst.
3dandbeyond, you remember when I said that they should have made that last requirement a living mind? The reason is from a game's point of view, this now allows for ... PLAYER'S CHOICE...his or her mind is now driving the device as well as give the the player the ability to fight Harbinger in a virtual boss fight. Mind against AI. I can think of no other way that would not seem ridiculous (Shepard face off Harbinger with an Assualt / Sniper rifle ... yeah right) and this would also allow for squad members should they be plugged in with Shepard to assist.

Thus. As the Catylst, Shepard could defeat Harbinger, and in the process, gain control via the Citadel, Reaper forces primary functions. Ranging from total shutdown to just having capital ship shields go out would swing a "hopeless" battle into one the Victory Fleet could win. And this was brought about by UNCONVENTIONAL MEANS.

Sacrifice.
Shepard would not get off easy though, nor those with him on that last mission. Instead of EMS, which would mean NOTHING in the context of the battle Shepard is fighting, we'd look as squad member loyalty and emotional investment.
Yup, how much your squad care for you determines how you succeed and if you or anyone else dies.

Example, if you didn't bring your love interest with you, and a neutral squad member who has no loyalty ties with you, Shepard dies.

Your LI will be your shield and suffer mental and or physical damage. Shepard lives but implants are damaged and he or she has 30-50 years left to live instead of another 100 or so. Your other squad mate face possible death, depending on if your combat skills. (it is still a shooting game, after all)

But that is how I see it could have worked out.
And why I disagree with those who think, a death sacrifice is the only way to go.
 
 
 
 ps: please excuse spelling / formatting errors, posting from my phone
 

You know your living mind idea is actually something that I used rather simplistically in my fan fiction.  It's not fully fleshed out and was not something I stole from you as an idea-I think I wrote this before your post, but my ancient brain sometimes subconsciously steals ideas, but anyway...  I don't think you'd judge me too harshly if I more fully utilized your idea, but I used as more Shepard getting near the conduit to the Citadel and then her consciousness making the trip.

It amazes me that we as human beings believe so wholeheartedly in the idea of happiness and love as goals and life as the be all and end all.  There are quotes, "where there is life, there is hope", in the US Declaration of Independence-pursuit of happiness.  We live to be happy and to love and to live on.  But, some of us think it's trite in literature, movies, art, and now in that last bastion of fun for fun's sake, gaming.

I will reiterate: for me, happy endings are no less genuine, authentic, nor artistic than the "some gave all" kind of ending.  Ask any soldier if it's way better to give your life than it is to come home to your family and ask which kind of thing is more inspiring, sacrificing your life for a nobel cause or fighting for that nobel cause, winning, and returning home, and I know what the answer will be.  They hurt when even one gives all.  There's more than enough of this real hurt in real life. 

There is far more inspiration and heartfelt satisfaction to be gained in an ending that creates this triumph over overwhelming adversity, than there is in requiring the hero sacrifice all to achieve success.  In short, the heart and soul is more fulfilled when good wins out fully over evil.  Sacrifices, even when necessary are demoralizing.  That's why they are avoided.

I say that knowing full well that there are others out there that want to see Shepard burn up or blow up in the ultimate act of bravery.  But, one does not preclude the other.  I just don't see a happy, riding off into the sunset kind of ending as any less genuine than a sacrificial one.  In fact, I see it as more genuine, more what you want from a game and from entertainment.  I can watch the news or actually look at true life and stories of bravery and sacrifice that exist there.  i want to win video games.  And since you are Shepard (I am Shepard), I don't win if Shepard dies. 

By all means. If you want I'll send you my exact ideas and storyline and you ca do whatever you want with it. Meant to do my fan fic but never quite got around to finishing it (as with my other fan fics as a search on fanfiction.net would show )

Ps: meant fanfiction.net corrected

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 mai 2012 - 04:32 .