269 réponses à ce sujet

[malra]

Bleachrude wrote...

malra wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The beginning of ME3 makes it pretty clear they still aren't ready, even though they had more time. It was pure chance they found the Crucible plans, chance they wouldn't have had if the reapers arrived earlier. At the end of ME3 you can ask Hackett if they could stand against the reapers if the Crucible fails, and the answer is that he doesn't think they can, but they would have to try.
Taking over the Citadel isn't possible anymore in a straight up fight for the Reapers, they can't just send the signal to the Keepers and they take over, thanks to the Protheans. They tried through Cerberus to infiltrate and take over but failed, again by chance. TIM isn't indoctrinated enough at that point to not realize his mistake if Reapers would have arrived shortly after they took over. His only goal was to control them, and if he realizes he failed in that I would grant TIM that he would still act on what he thinks is best for humanity and remedy his failure. They had to let it be.

sorry, I think you may be missing my point.   which is the massive plothole from ME1 to ME3 which leads down the whole "we can't just simply destroy the reapers because they are to powerful".  although the reapers are being portrayed in ME3 as unbeatable that was not the original way they were written in ME1.

Er, it was ME1 that made them so powerful...

It was Sovereign simply strolling through the citadel fleet and tanking the entire relief fleets weapons until the time when the backlash of Saren caused him to lower his barriers...

If anything, Me1 made the reapers way too strong...

no soveriegn says this about himself and the reapers, but I just took it as what the bully always does, builds themselves up into something bigger than they really are.  and then in ME1 we are told that the citadel is a trap to wipe out the centrality of galactic governance through a steath manuever (bringing the rest of the reapers through from darkspace) plus making it impossible for anyone to form a resistance.  this implies that yes, the reapers are defeatable. 

[ahandsomeshark]

FatalX7.0 wrote...
You're very, very disconnected from Shepard in this game. He/she is very independent now, Shepard is his/her own person and you, the player, are just along for the ride.

The whole thing just reeks of RUSHED.

yep this all of this.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Its amazing how much damage one kid has done to Mass Effect

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...
You're very, very disconnected from Shepard in this game. He/she is very independent now, Shepard is his/her own person and you, the player, are just along for the ride.

The whole thing just reeks of RUSHED.

yep this all of this.

Agreed

[Bleachrude]

The Angry One wrote...


The Geth were responsible for the majority of losses that day. While Sovereign was powerful, it wasn't invincible, and without it's barriers it was nothing.

Said barriers which ONLY went down in an unique situation?

Should be noted that ME3 doesn't actually say Reapers are invincible, as the turians took down several capital ships and the codex even goes as far as saying that 3-4 dreadnoughts are enough to take out 1 reaper capital ship...

The fact is that how a war would be won conventionally doesn't apply to the reapers...you can't cut off their supply chain, you can't attack their command structure, you can't appeal to their people, you can't drop an asteroid on their colonies....

[The Angry One]

Bleachrude wrote...

Said barriers which ONLY went down in an unique situation?

Should be noted that ME3 doesn't actually say Reapers are invincible, as the turians took down several capital ships and the codex even goes as far as saying that 3-4 dreadnoughts are enough to take out 1 reaper capital ship...

Again, the fleet against Sovereign was primarily cruisers without thanix cannons.
Thanix cannons alone are supposed to make a huge difference, if only they'd use them.

The fact is that how a war would be won conventionally doesn't apply to the reapers...you can't cut off their supply chain, you can't attack their command structure, you can't appeal to their people, you can't drop an asteroid on their colonies....

Harbinger, starbaby.

[VigilancePress]

As far as "Vent-kid" (aka Star-Jar Binks) goes, I felt in my gut something was wrong with the game when I first saw him. I reached out to the kid, thinking "Yay, my first rescue." And then the camera cuts away and back, and the kid is gone. I'm like "Damnit, Shepard, crawl in there and pull the twerp out! Don't give me this fatalist garbage!"

Then I saw the kid's transport get blasted, and I realized I was in for some heavy-handed stuff. I figured it would all come out "in the wash" by the ending... but then.... the ending...

[MegumiAzusa]

The Angry One wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Er, it was ME1 that made them so powerful...

It was Sovereign simply strolling through the citadel fleet and tanking the entire relief fleets weapons until the time when the backlash of Saren caused him to lower his barriers...

If anything, Me1 made the reapers way too strong...

Except no. The fleets in ME1 had no Thanix cannons, and no dreadnaughts aside from the Destiny-Ascension which was busy being swarmed by Geth.
The Geth were responsible for the majority of losses that day. While Sovereign was powerful, it wasn't invincible, and without it's barriers it was nothing.

It was still 1! Reaper vs multiple fleets. In ME3 it were multiple Reapers vs more fleets.

[ahandsomeshark]

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

except they constantly sell it as telling your story, shaping the universe and your shepard. And that's pretty much how the first two games played out, yeah you were Commander Shepard, but you chose what he cared about, how he reacted to people and things and even his background.

[Bleachrude]

The Angry One wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

cyric085 wrote...

problem is, when you try to get a heavy emotional reaction its best if the author stay the same .

it shows that there where many different authors (in a negative way) working on segments of the game.

the only really good scene i can remember was the part where mordin got killed and the asari radio chatter at the end of thessia mission.

the rest was medicore and forced

I would point out that if you can argue that "I have no emotional connection to the kid" than a player could legitimately argue "exactly why should I care about Mordin's death?"

Mordin is a character we've come to know and love.
The kid is some random kid we don't know and never knew.
I can't believe I have to explain this.

That's not actually true about Mordin...

Remember, you could have recruited him,then NEVER talk to him once  done veryone else's loyalty mission and he would still survive the suicide mission...

So why should such a player give two figs about Mordin?

[Evil Minion]

VigilancePress wrote...

cachx wrote...

VigilancePress wrote...

Evil Minion wrote...
I don't feel we ever had much "choice" to begin with.
I loved the dream sequences.
The kid was a symbol of all the people you can't save. Shepard cares about that. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard cares about saving humanity; therefore, he's having nightmares.
If he didn't, then he would not be doing what he's doing.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in having "control" over every last aspect of Shep's reactions.

So why are you playing Mass Effect?
(edit) I didn't mean that as Snark- I meant it as an honest question. Are you playing this as a Roleplaying game, or are you just interested in playing a cool sci-fi third person shooter with a good story?

Is not that black and white. Your definition of "RPG" is not absolute. I am satisfied by the roleplaying elements. I personally wasn't interested in controlling everyone of Shepards bowel movements.

Though I am tempted not to reply due to your crude comment, I do feel compelled to at least say this: in the first two games, your motivations for *why* you do things are largely in your hands through the dialogue options you choose. How you choose to solve a problem, whether you ignore a subplot entirely, which dialogue options... these things all matter. 

This teaches the player that "Their" Shepard has a distinctive, emergent personality that represents their choices. That personality might be Renegade, Paragon, or somewhere in between. The dream sequences in no way reflect your choices in the game or the personality those choices would indicate. That's my point, and I believe that was the point of this thread.

I never mentioned taking my character to the bathroom.

It's a fair question. No offense taken.

I understand your point, but my interpretation of "Shepard" is, regardless of whether you're renegade or paragon, you still care about saving humanity.

If your Shepard didn't give a hoot about saving humanity, then we wouldn't even have a story. The kid wasn't meant to be a literal child you were supposed to weep for, it was just a symbol of everyone you lost....or everyone you couldn't save......or your fallen squadmates........whatever your Shepard actually does care about...ect.

Shepard giving a hoot about saving humanity is one character trait that should hold true across all character incarnations. There was never an, "Screw this, I'm going to the beach!" option.

[VigilancePress]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Its amazing how much damage one kid has done to Mass Effect

Yeah. Y'know, I was really hoping they'd add some children to the Mass Effect universe eventually... the world felt so 'video gamey' without them. Then... the only kid in the entire franchise *breaks* the franchise.

My bad.

[noxsachi]

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

If Shepard isn't an avatar, than what kind of control does a player need to be given to make their controlled character an avatar?

Clearly Shepard is a much different character from Cloud, Solid Snake, or even Vito from GTA.

Since in the first two games we shape pretty much every reaction Shepard has, I would say they are pretty clearly an avatar. Just the fact that Shepard is female to me and male to you is enough to say that there is a very large degree of difference between our visions of Shepard.

Also Ventkid as a symbol fails by making it something that we have no connection with, other than our YOOMANITY. Hell speaking of YOOMANITY I think TIM was a better symbol for what was lost in the war as he delves into the crazy stuff like what he does at Sanctum and how far he is truly willing to achieve his goals. He may not be lost on our account, but he is a human who loses his humanity. And if you want to put a face on all the loss we have suffered...we have dead squadmates. They have faces, we ostentatiously care more about someone we have a connection with than a random human. Hell that is a point Mordin raises in both ME2 and in ME3 (http://www.youtube.c...lMVmAeQdw#t=95s)

Modifié par noxsachi, 01 avril 2012 - 06:05 .

[ahandsomeshark]

there's also the fact it was SPECIFICALLY SAID there would be NO reaper off button.

Which is EXACTLY what the crucible was.

[The Angry One]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It was still 1! Reaper vs multiple fleets. In ME3 it were multiple Reapers vs more fleets.

More fleets with far superior shielding and thanix cannons which aren't factored in at all for some reason.

[Zuka999]

Vikali wrote...

Speaking of forced emotion, it really struck me when Ashley got her face melted. Mainly because she spent the previous hour complaining to my Shepard and accusing her of working with Cerberus so my Shep was hoping she'd just fall off a building. The whole ASHLEY'S HURT IM SAD was very out of character for her.

Yeah, I would have just left her to die at that point if it was my choice. I hated both Virmire survivors.

[ahandsomeshark]

noxsachi wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

If Shepard isn't an avatar, than what kind of control does a player need to be given to make their controlled character an avatar?

Clearly Shepard is a much different character from Cloud, Solid Snake, or even Vito from GTA.

Since in the first two games we shape pretty much every reaction Shepard has, I would say they are pretty clearly an avatar. Just the fact that Shepard is female to me and male to you is enough to say that there is a very large degree of difference between our visions of Shepard.

also this, when I play GTA I know I'm watching another character's story, but that's not what I thought Mass Effect was about.

[Ashilana]

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

Nope, gotta disagree there.  Shep is a pretty blank slate in the first two games... depending on what you choose, Shep can be a heroic do-gooder or an angry s.o.b.   Shep never has long introspective rants that show the audience Shep's inner monologue, Shep just tells other people what to do and occassionally says why.

Then, in ME3 we are forced to watch Shep have preset reactions to events.  Pretty crudy.

[The Angry One]

Bleachrude wrote...

That's not actually true about Mordin...

Remember, you could have recruited him,then NEVER talk to him once  done veryone else's loyalty mission and he would still survive the suicide mission...

So why should such a player give two figs about Mordin?

That would be that player's choice.
Please do tell under what scenario do we get to know this kid? 

[Bleachrude]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

except they constantly sell it as telling your story, shaping the universe and your shepard. And that's pretty much how the first two games played out, yeah you were Commander Shepard, but you chose what he cared about, how he reacted to people and things and even his background.

That's not exactly true either...

I believe it was one of the good Drs who said that DA was more "your story told in first person" with ME being more of a narrative about shepard that you have some control over" and this was back pre DA2/ME2

[The Angry One]

Bleachrude wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Your first problem, OP, is that you think Shepard is your avatar. He isn't. Shepard isn't an avatar.

An avatar is an empty shell that can be filled with the player's own headcanon. While Shepard isn't really a fleshed-out character, he certainly is not an empty shell, not at all.


When we play Shepard, we play as Commander Shepard, an N7 soldier from the Systems Alliance, first human Spectre and the hero of the battle at the Citadel against Sovereign. That's far from an empty shell and far from an avatar.

except they constantly sell it as telling your story, shaping the universe and your shepard. And that's pretty much how the first two games played out, yeah you were Commander Shepard, but you chose what he cared about, how he reacted to people and things and even his background.

That's not exactly true either...

I believe it was one of the good Drs who said that DA was more "your story told in first person" with ME being more of a narrative about shepard that you have some control over" and this was back pre DA2/ME2

And we had control over Shepard's reactions, morality and persona. Do you get it now?

[Ashilana]

Zuka999 wrote...
Yeah, I would have just left her to die at that point if it was my choice. I hated both Virmire survivors.

Even my pure paragon Shep wanted to just shrug and walk off.  Ashley was not overly important to my Shep in the first (racist, ignorant and not overly useful) or second game (not loyal) and so the overboard emotional reaction in ME3 to her being injured was very forced.

[MegumiAzusa]

The Angry One wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It was still 1! Reaper vs multiple fleets. In ME3 it were multiple Reapers vs more fleets.

More fleets with far superior shielding and thanix cannons which aren't factored in at all for some reason.

It is shown that compared to ME1 they relatively quickly take some reapers out. However these are still single Reapers of thousands.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 01 avril 2012 - 06:06 .

[The Angry One]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It was still 1! Reaper vs multiple fleets. In ME3 it were multiple Reapers vs more fleets.

More fleets with far superior shielding and thanix cannons which aren't factored in at all for some reason.

Yes, and it is shown that compared to ME1 they relatively quickly take some reapers out. However these are still single Reapers of thousands.

Now imagine what they could do if they actually used proper FTL tactics, thanix cannons and VI assisted focused fire like we're told in the codex instead of firing randomly and charging at the Reapers to presumably ruin their paintwork with their hulls.