319 réponses à ce sujet

[Lightice_av]

Tirigon wrote...

They were meant to go there....

No, they had no choice but to go to Valinor because the Valar screwed up and evil gained a too great foothold in Middle-Earth to fix. Valar taking them there in the first place was a mistake on their part.

And how? ALL high tech is destroyed!

A remarkable claim, but supported by absolutely nothing in any of the endings. EDI is high technology, the last time I checked.

sigh, quantum entangler communicators were experimental technilogay ONLY installed on the normandy. planets don't have them. for normal communications , here - wiki entry for you.

Still promoting ignorance of the basic storyline of the game I see. Anderson tells you explicitly at the start of ME3 that Earth has several quantum entangler communicators. Earth is not the most advanced planet in the galaxy, hence it can be extrapolated that others also use these communicators now. There was a TIME GAP between ME2 and ME3.

crusible was built with entire galaxy helping, supplies being brought in... you guessed it again! via relays. from across the entire galaxy. but now? everyone is stranded in their respective system. and there's no way to get materials that you are lacking, technology, ect.

Because no-one would think of taking apart the Crucible, the Reapers or the Relays' remains for materials and tech.

as for why would survivors die out? again, because they lack supplies. Sol system is especialy bad. entire galactic fleet and only a ravaged planet to try and feed them.

They have A PLANET. A planet's worth of supplies. And the number of people using them has just been reduced by hundreds of millions. They have more than enough supplies to start rebuilding, thank you very much.

Modifié par Lightice_av, 25 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[jeweledleah]

Talon2000uk wrote...

I like Kirk, don't believe in the no win scenario. This is supposed to be the end to a series about choice, I do not want to be told what ending i get I want my action to be reflected in the ending. She may die she may not its up to what I do to make the difference. Hell even the **** endings we have now have the option of Shepard living. Bioware do not rail road me into having my Shepard die. Again this is a game about choice.

DAO did it best. You could die, you could sacrifice Alistair or you could make the bargain and live. That was a good ending.

agreed.  also Kobayashi maru   I always thought that Shep and Kirk had a lot in common.  even femshep.

[Lightice_av]

The Catalyst says so. It is why the Geth are killed if you destroy the Reapers.

The geth die because they are synthetic life, not because they are high technology. And that's only one of the endings. The geth survive in both the others.

[Midz]

Want him /her dead ,so that i dont have to read endless bring back my shepard threads .

As for DAO was a good ending but in hindsight think death would have been better than we want more Warden again and again and again ..and some of the anti Hawke reactions.

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
And how? ALL high tech is destroyed!

Huh? Where are you getting that from?

The Catalyst says so. It is why the Geth are killed if you destroy the Reapers.

No, he says all synthetic life will be destroyed, not all high technology. See here at  3 minutes or so in.

Seriously, dude, you need to start paying better attention to the games before arguing about them.

[xScarecrowX]

I just thought of something. Were VI's and AI's destroyed?

[Rache123]

iakus wrote...

 As I'v esaid on a previous thread

I support "Shepard has the option to..."

I oppose "Shepard has to..." 

As far as the ending is concerned.,

There should be endings where Shepard lives and is reunited with his/her LI

There should be endings where Shepard lives but some/all companions die

There should be endings where Shepard dies to save the galaxy

And there should be endings where Shepard fails and everyone loses.

works for me, this is what it should have been about, distinct choices that would appease most people

[Iakus]

Lightice_av wrote...

These are not personal sacrifices unless they impact the player, not just Shepard. In ME1 people invariably did away with the squadmate they liked the least. In ME2 plenty cheered at the possibility of joining Cerberus, you didn't have to sacrifice anybody if you didn't want to, and you would come home victorious. No sacrifices there. The epic trilogy of defeating cosmic evil that has been destroying civilizations for millions of years can't be made poignant without massive player punch that makes you both sad and angry at the end; Bioware got a bit different type of anger than they were expecting to be sure, but their goal was right.

For role-players, any personal sacrifice on Shepard's part affects the player.  Some of us to this day feel a twinge having to choose who to send to their deaths.  

There are also those of us who hated Cerberus (even as we understood the necessity of them) and couldn't wait for an opportunity to screw them.

A forced death on Shepard's part renders any romance pursued in the game bitter and pointless.  In particular those that spanned the trilogy.  Shepard falls in love with the VS.  Shepard dies (yes, Shepard has already died once for the cause) VS moves on during those two years and loses trust in Shepard for working with Cerberus.  They reconnect in ME3, move past the trust issues, fall in love again, with a relationship stronger than ever.

Then Shepard died.  Again.  Leaving the VS alone.  Again.

 

Mass Effect does not end with "rock falls, everybody dies" unless you get the bad ending where the Crucible destroys all life. It has an esoteric happy ending where evil is destroyed or made impotent with great sacrifice that leads to future that is finally free of the covert stagnating influence of the Mass Relays, uncertain but full of possibilities, potentially leaning towards a transhumanist future.

Yeah, and even Deus Ex didn't require the deaths of Denton or Jensen.

As Jeweled pointed out, there has already been plenty of blood spilled in the war against the Reapers.  Several of Shepard's old friends must die.  Several others can die.  Shepard's been on the front lines of the war agaisnt the Reapers since the start.  Shepard has fought and sacrificed more than anyone else has at this point, has lost friends, been exposed to weird technologies, saved and destroyed whole colonies, and has already died once.

Is it too much to ask that Shepard can have an ending more like Sam?  Hasn't Shepard done enough?  hasn't he/she earned rest?

"It's easy to find something worth dying for.  Do you have anything worth living for?"

Modifié par iakus, 25 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Lightice_av]

I just thought of something. Were VI's and AI's destroyed?

AIs yes, but VIs probably not, since they are not conscious or alive in any sense of the word. Even the geth might have survived if they didn't have the Reaper code that gave them individuality at that point.

[Iakus]

xScarecrowX wrote...

I just thought of something. Were VI's and AI's destroyed?

AIs almost certainly.  VIs unknown

[AlanC9]

jeweledleah wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
This is just wrong. We travel between the systems without using relays all the time in the games. What do you think is going on when you fly the Normandy from one system to another in a cluster?

can't travel between clusters though.  nowhere to refuel or discharge the emmission,s before they overheat the core.  plus it would take too long.

It's not impossible to do long-range missions with the existing tech. Even Ilos was technically reachable without the relay -- the project ws just considered impractical.

But yeah, going from Earth to Thessia or Palaven without the relays would be a big project. Sounds like something for a sequel.

[xScarecrowX]

Oh thank god! My jellyfish might not starve! 

Modifié par xScarecrowX, 25 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Rache123]

Getorex wrote...

My answer is a short and sweet, "NO". I would not be OK with AN ending like that being forced down my gullet no matter what I did. I would not begrudge other people wanting to kill off THEIR Shepard for THEIR story purposes but I have another story and ending in mind. It doesn't (didn't) involve killing my Shepard. Closure doesn't mean what you think it means if you assume it means "death of protagonist". Phoooie.

Agreed - I did the same - Bioware can keep their grubby hands off my sheperd!

[Tirigon]

Lightice_av wrote...

The Catalyst says so. It is why the Geth are killed if you destroy the Reapers.

The geth die because they are synthetic life, not because they are high technology. And that's only one of the endings. The geth survive in both the others.

The catalyst states that most high tech is destroyed as well. At any rate, Reaper Tech such as the Conduit is most definitely or it would fail.

[Iakus]

jeweledleah wrote...

Talon2000uk wrote...

I like Kirk, don't believe in the no win scenario. This is supposed to be the end to a series about choice, I do not want to be told what ending i get I want my action to be reflected in the ending. She may die she may not its up to what I do to make the difference. Hell even the **** endings we have now have the option of Shepard living. Bioware do not rail road me into having my Shepard die. Again this is a game about choice.

DAO did it best. You could die, you could sacrifice Alistair or you could make the bargain and live. That was a good ending.

agreed.  also Kobayashi maru   I always thought that Shep and Kirk had a lot in common.  even femshep.

My Shep loves Eve's line.  I even put it in my sig.

[Eylos]

i would be okay if all ther army died or the entire planet destroyed, or even all the sol system exploded, as the ultimate solution sheppard destroys the relay and everything to save the universe

anything is better than the actual ending

Modifié par Eylos, 25 mars 2012 - 05:43 .

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Without space magic aka Mass Relays travel between systems is not possible in the lore of Mass Effect.

This is just wrong. We travel between the systems without using relays all the time in the games. What do you think is going on when you fly the Normandy from one system to another in a cluster?

Maybe I am confusing systems with Clusters or something. but at any rate, travel between the place where one Mass Relay is and where the next is is impossible without it. I do not know, and not really care tbh, if that is called cluster or system or something else. You know what I mean.

A "system" is a star (or stars if it's a binary) and the associated planets. A cluster is many systems.

And again, not impossible. Merely difficult. So each existing cluster is going to have to develop a local economy. Clusters without a garden world are probably doomed. Clusters with one or several should be relatively OK.

[Lightice_av]

A forced death on Shepard's part renders any romance pursued in the game botter and pointless. In particular those that spanned the trilogy. Shepard falls in love with the VS. Shepard dies (yes, Shepard has already died once for the cause) VS moves on during those two years and loses trust in Shepard for working with Cerberus. They reconnect in ME3, move past the trust issues, fall in love again, with a relationship stronger than ever.

Then Shepard died. Again. Leaving the VS alone. Again.

Why is a romantic plot "pointless" because one party dies at the end again? Dig through Wikipedia and I'm sure that you can find hundreds of popular and famous novels where this happens. .Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy, and to me the romance subplot gave this particular poignancy as it meant that my Shepard sacrificed herself extremely personal reasons, as well as to save the galaxy; why wouldn't a hero like Shepard want to die for those s/he loves, if that is the only way to save them?

Shepard is not the Sam of Mass Effect. Shepard is Frodo. The main hero who takes the worst beating to spare the others the pain. Shepard is the messianic archetype, and those are rarely blessed with long life or happy ending. They give up their lives to ensure that others can live happily ever after.

[jeweledleah]

@ Light. crucible is destroyed when its discharge.

entire galactic fleet. multiple races vs ravaged earth to the point of resembling Tuchanka

according to this entry, technology is limited and STILL experimental http://masseffect.wi.../The_Reaper_War entire clusters have gone dark, JUST from reapers destroying comm buoys.

for someone so enamored of tragedy, you are remarkably optimistic about the reaper war outcome without relays.

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...


No, he says all synthetic life will be destroyed, not all high technology. See here at  3 minutes or so in.

Seriously, dude, you need to start paying better attention to the games before arguing about them.

And what about the Normandy crashing after getting hit by the Criucible beam?

And that happens even if you control so it is NOT because of EDI being destroyed.

[Lightice_av]

The catalyst states that most high tech is destroyed as well. At any rate, Reaper Tech such as the Conduit is most definitely or it would fail.

It. Does. Not. The Catalyst only states that the synthetic life would be destroyed, and in only single one of the endings. Go to YouTube and watch them all. I am waiting.

And it doesn't matter that the existing Conduit is destroyed. It is not magic. It's technology, and technology can be rebuilt. The whole point of the destruction of the Relays is to force the galactic civilizations to rely on themselves, and free them from the covert control of the Reapers that stagnated their development for millennia. They can build their own relays, the Conduits, this time with proper understanding to master the secrets of the cosmos for themselves

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

The Catalyst says so. It is why the Geth are killed if you destroy the Reapers.

The geth die because they are synthetic life, not because they are high technology. And that's only one of the endings. The geth survive in both the others.

The catalyst states that most high tech is destroyed as well. At any rate, Reaper Tech such as the Conduit is most definitely or it would fail.

He says no such thing. I posted the link. Watch.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[Tirigon]

Lightice_av wrote...

And it doesn't matter that the existing Conduit is destroyed. It is not magic. It's technology, and technology can be rebuilt. The whole point of the destruction of the Relays is to force the galactic civilizations to rely on themselves, and free them from the covert control of the Reapers that stagnated their development for millennia. They can build their own relays, the Conduits, this time with proper understanding to master the secrets of the cosmos for themselves

Before the Reaper war that MAY have been possible. If you loook at how Earth, Palaven and all the other planets look, however, it is doubtful they can even build a common spaceship, let alon technology so advanced they could not figure it out for millenia.

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


No, he says all synthetic life will be destroyed, not all high technology. See here at  3 minutes or so in.

Seriously, dude, you need to start paying better attention to the games before arguing about them.

And what about the Normandy crashing after getting hit by the Criucible beam?

And that happens even if you control so it is NOT because of EDI being destroyed.

What about it?

[keginkc]

Absolutely.