DrowVampyre wrote...
Nah, honestly, presented with that choice, I'd choose to fight the Reapers conventionally as well as we could. At least then if you lose the next cycle still has some sort of galactic infrastructure they can possibly use and you've caused however many losses to weaken the Reapers so that maybe they can kill them.
CheeseEnchilada wrote...
In an edgy, dark novel where this was an established theme, I would fully embrace it.
From a game series that had you walking out of the debris of a reaper with a smirk in the first game and getting everyone out of a suicide mission alive in the second, it seems like a high price, and one that goes against the theme of the first two games, which has always seemed to be 'triumph against the odds'. I was expecting a bittersweet ending, but this seems heavy on the bitter, light on the sweet. The way it was implemented wasn't flawless either. If there had been a ray of hope despite the darkness, I would have been okay. As it is, there's a lot left unexplained.
Let Marauder Shields save you...Chk-2000 wrote...
Cheesy Blue wrote...
Their isn't really any other option. As of right now, it's either use the Crucible or die. A galactic dark age sucks but it's the hand we have been dealt.
There's an option to not use the Crucible? Where?
I heard you can also just wait and watch the battle around the Citadel. Some claim that after some time... you get a game over as the Citadel gets destroyed. I tried to confirm this but got bored after awhile and just exited the game.Jonathan Sud wrote...
Let Marauder Shields save you...Chk-2000 wrote...
Cheesy Blue wrote...
Their isn't really any other option. As of right now, it's either use the Crucible or die. A galactic dark age sucks but it's the hand we have been dealt.
There's an option to not use the Crucible? Where?
Modifié par Madecologist, 23 mars 2012 - 09:29 .
Grumpy-Mcfart wrote...
CheeseEnchilada wrote...
In an edgy, dark novel where this was an established theme, I would fully embrace it.
From a game series that had you walking out of the debris of a reaper with a smirk in the first game and getting everyone out of a suicide mission alive in the second, it seems like a high price, and one that goes against the theme of the first two games, which has always seemed to be 'triumph against the odds'. I was expecting a bittersweet ending, but this seems heavy on the bitter, light on the sweet. The way it was implemented wasn't flawless either. If there had been a ray of hope despite the darkness, I would have been okay. As it is, there's a lot left unexplained.
Lankist wrote...
If they're dead-set on galactic dark ages, it needs to be established and cemented in the player's mind that the story is heading in that direction from the get-go.
There was a lot more "we're going to save the day and then get drinks!" talk in all three games (particularly ME3) than there rightfully should have been were this the planned to be the definitive conclusion.
How to leave a fictional world on a satisfactory note:
Awesome, nigh-utopian world --> Is changed further for the better / Revealed to be flawed and flaws confronted or completely expelled.
Crapsack world --> Is improved greatly, though still not perfect.
Hopelessly depressive world --> The world still sucks, but it's a tiny bit better thanks to the hero.
Mass Effect 3 ended with the world in worse shape than it began, which is why it is fundamentally unsatisfactory. You did more damage to the galaxy than the Reapers did, and the "Dark Age" is plainly your fault, which not only diminishes the lives of existing species but all of the species the Reapers WEREN'T going to obliterate this time around.
Tehzim wrote...
DrowVampyre wrote...
Nah, honestly, presented with that choice, I'd choose to fight the Reapers conventionally as well as we could. At least then if you lose the next cycle still has some sort of galactic infrastructure they can possibly use and you've caused however many losses to weaken the Reapers so that maybe they can kill them.
This +1
All of your people die, galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future, and the Reapers are still around
Spotty Squirrel wrote...
The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 has a flow chart that shows the Prothean VI stating that the Crucible will cause a "galatic dark age". Is a galatic dark age a reasonable price to pay for destroying the Reapers forever, or is the price just too high?
I think it is a reasonable, but very high, price to pay. If the Reapers were not eliminated, they would destroy most of the Galaxy's life anyway.
CheeseEnchilada wrote...
In an edgy, dark novel where this was an established theme, I would fully embrace it.
From a game series that had you walking out of the debris of a reaper with a smirk in the first game and getting everyone out of a suicide mission alive in the second, it seems like a high price, and one that goes against the theme of the first two games, which has always seemed to be 'triumph against the odds'. I was expecting a bittersweet ending, but this seems heavy on the bitter, light on the sweet. The way it was implemented wasn't flawless either. If there had been a ray of hope despite the darkness, I would have been okay. As it is, there's a lot left unexplained.
Lankist wrote...
If they're dead-set on galactic dark ages, it needs to be established and cemented in the player's mind that the story is heading in that direction from the get-go.
There was a lot more "we're going to save the day and then get drinks!" talk in all three games (particularly ME3) than there rightfully should have been were this the planned to be the definitive conclusion.
How to leave a fictional world on a satisfactory note:
Awesome, nigh-utopian world --> Is changed further for the better / Revealed to be flawed and flaws confronted or completely expelled.
Crapsack world --> Is improved greatly, though still not perfect.
Hopelessly depressive world --> The world still sucks, but it's a tiny bit better thanks to the hero.
Mass Effect 3 ended with the world in worse shape than it began, which is why it is fundamentally unsatisfactory. You did more damage to the galaxy than the Reapers did, and the "Dark Age" is plainly your fault, which not only diminishes the lives of existing species but all of the species the Reapers WEREN'T going to obliterate this time around.
Kmead15 wrote...
Tehzim wrote...
DrowVampyre wrote...
Nah, honestly, presented with that choice, I'd choose to fight the Reapers conventionally as well as we could. At least then if you lose the next cycle still has some sort of galactic infrastructure they can possibly use and you've caused however many losses to weaken the Reapers so that maybe they can kill them.
This +1
So your choices are:
(A) A bunch of your own people die and galactic civilization is wiped out for the foreseeable future
(
And you choose the second? What did the next cycle ever do to you? Heck, without the head start the Protheans gave us, there's no telling how long it would take for those suckers to be able to use the relays. We might even be out of the dark age again before they would have developed to that point. Even in the worst case scenario where the dark age ends in our extinction, the next cycle still has it better off in option A. I suppose they'll have to build their own relay network if they want one, the poor babies. That's a much worse hardship than probably being wiped out by the Reapers
Biotic Sage wrote...
rma2110 wrote...
So it will become Fallout Effect 4? A post apocalyptic setting just wouldn't feel like Mass Effect.
You know, a sequel doesn't have to take place a year or two after the original movie.
The next Mass Effect game could be thousands of years in the future. Hundreds of thousands. The possibilities are endless.
Tregon wrote...
deimosmasque wrote...
It's funny. Many see a "Dark Age" but I see it from going from "Star Wars travel" to "Star Trek travel."
It's going to go from one united galaxy to a factionalized galaxy where there are areas that are Krogan Space, Turian Space, Quarian Space, Asari Space, etc. And since travel isn't nearly instantaneously easy anymore.resources will be fought over, either in actual wars or through diplomatic channels.
So yes, maybe that is a "Dark Age" compared to what Mass Effect had already shown us, but it's my preferred form of Sci-Fi space growing up preferring Star Trek, Star Control, Dune and the Foundation Trilogy.
You are forgetting that civilization relied on fast travel. How many worlds and/or clusters are set up to be fully self sufficient? Specially with Reapers having caused massive destruction.
It is bit like denying use of engines tomorrow. Would Tokyo be able to feed itself if everything had to be carted there by foot? New York?
What happens to Samoa when there is no ability to replace parts for failing toasters, fridges and whatnot?
Interdependency of world, or in case of ME worlds, means it will collapse totally if connections are suddenly severed.
Kmead15 wrote...
I thought Star Wars had regular FTL too?
Nihilistic or grimm endings, is the new rave now. Go against the flow, be unique. But in an odd twist of fate, it actually becomes the 'new standard' and is not as unique as people think it is because everyone else is doing it. It is the common syndrome of any 'counter-culture' movement, it becomes its own norm.Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem with this dark age scenario is that...
Damn it, the story was never about "saving future generations of life". There was no build-up for that, so I have no connection to it. This is Shepard dying for nothing I care about. "Everyone and and everything I care about is screwed"? THAT is our ending? What a collossal joke. What an utter failure. Bioware, this isn't some intellectual thought experiment, you're playing with people's dreams.
Apart from that, I hate dark endings beyond anything else. In any medium, but most especially in SF. Had I even remotely suspected it would end that way, I would never have started to play ME1. And there was no foreshadowing of this, it came totally out of the blue.
The forced "dark age of the galaxy" has to go.
Also, I'm very, very wary of DA3 now.
Modifié par Madecologist, 23 mars 2012 - 10:13 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
The problem with this dark age scenario is that...
Damn it, the story was never about "saving future generations of life". There was no build-up for that, so I have no connection to it. This is Shepard dying for nothing I care about. "Everyone and and everything I care about is screwed"? THAT is our ending? What a collossal joke. What an utter failure. Bioware, this isn't some intellectual thought experiment, you're playing with people's dreams.
Apart from that, I hate dark endings beyond anything else. In any medium, but most especially in SF. Had I even remotely suspected it would end that way, I would never have started to play ME1. And there was no foreshadowing of this, it came totally out of the blue.
The forced "dark age of the galaxy" has to go.
Also, I'm very, very wary of DA3 now.
ArchLord James wrote...
Spotty Squirrel wrote...
The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3 has a flow chart that shows the Prothean VI stating that the Crucible will cause a "galatic dark age". Is a galatic dark age a reasonable price to pay for destroying the Reapers forever, or is the price just too high?
I think it is a reasonable, but very high, price to pay. If the Reapers were not eliminated, they would destroy most of the Galaxy's life anyway.
Only the destroy ending eliminates the reapers though, the green and blue ending only shows the reapers fly away. No matter what you pick, your picking the reapers choices though, and even the destroy ending comes with a final genocide of the geth and the murder of EDI so. . . the choices all suck. EIther do the reapers genocidal job for them (destroy) or follow sarens lead and blend organic and synthetic life essentially harvesting everyone against their will and making them husks (synthesis), or follow TIM's lead and try to control the reapers (control). Every option is the reapers "solution" and shepard has agreed to serve the reapers and help them implement these solutions. Such bull.
DrowVampyre wrote...
Yeah, I do choose the second. I also
leave as much hidden data/tech as possible for the next cycle, so that
if we do lose (not convinced we would, no matter what Hackett says -
it's a longshot, but not impossible), we've done a lot of damage to the
Reapers and the next cycle has an even bigger head start (and a warning
that the crucible isn't worth messing with so to use their resources on
something more useful), and they still have the relays to allow some sort of real galactic civilization.
Madecologist wrote...
Except in Xenosaga 3, by beating 'the final boss' you prove you might have the will and power to stop the universe from collapsing on itself. So there is still some hope that Shion and Co will find a means to save the universe.
As for this topic, the answer would be yes. The Reapers are gone forever (hopefully... Control has me Leary), and the current races have a chance to survive. So you still have Asari, Salarian, Krogans, and Humans instead of another cycle with a 50K clock ticking away.
lyleoffmyspace wrote...
Biotic Sage wrote...
rma2110 wrote...
So it will become Fallout Effect 4? A post apocalyptic setting just wouldn't feel like Mass Effect.
You know, a sequel doesn't have to take place a year or two after the original movie.
The next Mass Effect game could be thousands of years in the future. Hundreds of thousands. The possibilities are endless.
It's not Mass Effect then.
leonia42 wrote...
Maybe the next game will be a post-apocalyptic space opera.. nobody said the ending had to be uplifting or "good". It's still the Mass Effect universe, it's just going to be a lot different next time we see it (unless future games take place in the past).
Retour en haut