Modifié par Hudathan, 06 avril 2012 - 06:12 .
SovereignWillReturn wrote...
But here's the thing, the Star Child LETS you choose red, and end his existence along with all the reapers.
If I did red, and the Star Child was all, "WTF SHEP! STOP! And then I shot his brains out, along with the red"
Then I would be okay.
a.m.p wrote...
It is admittedly a problem of the whole main plot line revolving around the crucible. Let's say this. Whether the reapers could or could not be defeated conventionally was up to Bioware. They decided to make the crucible plot and thus told us that no, no conventional fighting. It was an arbitrary decision, regardless of everything previously established. When I was talking to Hackett, I felt it was awfully forced and more like Bioware through Hackett beating me over the head with the idea that I have to go build the crucible and nothing else would work.
Reintroducing the idea of beating them conventionally at the last moment, after everyone has been obsessing over the crucible for the whole game would cause certain disconnect, but I really think it could solve more problems then it causes.
How dare you bring logic and sense to a meeting with artis... ya know what, I can't finish that statement without wanting to drink bleach.a.m.p wrote...
CapnManx wrote...
It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.
Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).
I disagree. I never got the impression that fighting them was absolutely impossible. There are ways of doing damage to them that are never brought up or discussed. Arrival teaches us how to make supernovas. We have thanix cannons. Concentrated fire from several ships can take out a sovereign-class reaper. The galaxy map shows us that there are small groups of them all over the galaxy. How about we go after those? How about we apply some goddamn strategy and tactics?
The previous cycles were defeated largely because the reapers took the citadel and disabled the relay network. This cycle has an advantage. If they manage to push the reapers back from Sol, the citadel is under their control again.
CapnManx wrote...
a.m.p wrote...
It is admittedly a problem of the whole main plot line revolving around the crucible. Let's say this. Whether the reapers could or could not be defeated conventionally was up to Bioware. They decided to make the crucible plot and thus told us that no, no conventional fighting. It was an arbitrary decision, regardless of everything previously established. When I was talking to Hackett, I felt it was awfully forced and more like Bioware through Hackett beating me over the head with the idea that I have to go build the crucible and nothing else would work.
Reintroducing the idea of beating them conventionally at the last moment, after everyone has been obsessing over the crucible for the whole game would cause certain disconnect, but I really think it could solve more problems then it causes.
On the introduction of the Crucible we can agree. It was an uber-maguffin; and I always hate when one of those gets pulled out of nowhere, in a series that was doing perfectly well without. Still, changing that would be changing the entire plot of ME3, not just the ending, so we're stuck with it.
I think the folly of fighting them conventionally was demonstrated well enough; the Taurian fleet was the biggest and most powerful in the galaxy, and they couldn't even stop the Reapers from landing on the very seat of their power. The combined forces of the galaxy were being gathered just to retake Earth; were they supposed to do that, one planet at a time, for every planet? It would take too long; just about everyone they were trying to save would get harvested (and that would mean more Reapers, which is the biggest problem; it's sort of like a zombie apocalypse, except the zombies actually have better guns than the humans).
Sheppard's career military; he/she knows how to fight, and what the fleets of the galaxy can do, and how to assess the strength of an enemy. I just see the lack of a 'No' option as simply an expression of him/her accepting Hackett's statement as indisputedly true; we win with the fancy Prothean super weapon, or we don't win at all. It's a case of the character knowing better than the player, due to specialized in-universe knowledge and skills that the player can't possess.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed the Magic Pistol throughout the series.david46 wrote...
If Shep can pull out a magic pistol in other cut scenes why can't he have one on the Citadel that blows away "Casper"? Then he takes control of the Citadel and fires the weapon that wipes out the Reapers. With an extreme sense of purpose that defeats Casper's control, Shepard gains the best ending, fulfilling ultimate goal.Follow this with an epilog, detailing what happens to each surviving companion in the original Fallout style.That is closure, and it it preserves the "artistic integrity" of the game, whatever that is. (Try to search to define that)
Clarification on magic pistol: It is the one that appears in Shep's hand whether or not he/she is carrying one. It can only kill synthetics(Dr Eva) , it has no effect on organics(Kai Leng). Ashley uses a normal pistol on Dr Eve to no effect, but it blows her away.
Caz Tirin wrote...
How dare you bring logic and sense to a meeting with artis... ya know what, I can't finish that statement without wanting to drink bleach.a.m.p wrote...
CapnManx wrote...
It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.
Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).
I disagree. I never got the impression that fighting them was absolutely impossible. There are ways of doing damage to them that are never brought up or discussed. Arrival teaches us how to make supernovas. We have thanix cannons. Concentrated fire from several ships can take out a sovereign-class reaper. The galaxy map shows us that there are small groups of them all over the galaxy. How about we go after those? How about we apply some goddamn strategy and tactics?
The previous cycles were defeated largely because the reapers took the citadel and disabled the relay network. This cycle has an advantage. If they manage to push the reapers back from Sol, the citadel is under their control again.
The mantra that keeps being repeated throughout ME3 is "they can't be defeated by conventional means" and yet every time we take one down shortly after. Usually with "conventional" weapons through "unconventional" tactics/strategy. Pretty sure Kalros isn't conventional. Pretty sure someone on the ground, in the Reaper's face, with a targeting laser isn't conventional. If anything, I was left with the impression that we could overcome the Reapers, just not with the tactics and strategies we were all used to using. Even Javik said that the lack of diverse strategies was one of their downfalls and weaknesses. EVERYTHING pointed to the possibility of being able to stand up and defeat the Reapers without surrendering to idiotic non-choices.
Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 06 avril 2012 - 06:59 .
I had forgotten about the Cain. Very good point.a.m.p wrote...
Caz Tirin wrote...
How dare you bring logic and sense to a meeting with artis... ya know what, I can't finish that statement without wanting to drink bleach.a.m.p wrote...
CapnManx wrote...
It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.
Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).
I disagree. I never got the impression that fighting them was absolutely impossible. There are ways of doing damage to them that are never brought up or discussed. Arrival teaches us how to make supernovas. We have thanix cannons. Concentrated fire from several ships can take out a sovereign-class reaper. The galaxy map shows us that there are small groups of them all over the galaxy. How about we go after those? How about we apply some goddamn strategy and tactics?
The previous cycles were defeated largely because the reapers took the citadel and disabled the relay network. This cycle has an advantage. If they manage to push the reapers back from Sol, the citadel is under their control again.
The mantra that keeps being repeated throughout ME3 is "they can't be defeated by conventional means" and yet every time we take one down shortly after. Usually with "conventional" weapons through "unconventional" tactics/strategy. Pretty sure Kalros isn't conventional. Pretty sure someone on the ground, in the Reaper's face, with a targeting laser isn't conventional. If anything, I was left with the impression that we could overcome the Reapers, just not with the tactics and strategies we were all used to using. Even Javik said that the lack of diverse strategies was one of their downfalls and weaknesses. EVERYTHING pointed to the possibility of being able to stand up and defeat the Reapers without surrendering to idiotic non-choices.
Thank you. Yes, conventional weapons and unconventional tactics. But on a bigger scale than just one destroyer (by the way, in priority:Earth we take the destroyer cannon out with one shot from a cain, just saying).
I have a feeling that at some point eralier at development conventional victory was an option, so we get all those sequences. And then the main plot with the crucible was written.
And yet that still makes more sense than how things actually play out.Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
You CAN say no. its called "not
doing either option" it results in the crucible being destroyed by the
reapers and the game being over.
Modifié par Caz Tirin, 06 avril 2012 - 07:01 .
a.m.p wrote...
[Mandatory statement that removing the starchild would be the best fix for the ending]
Back to the topic.
Judging by the Extended cut announcement all key elements of the ending: the starchild, control/destroy/synthesis, relays blowing up are staying. Same announcement states that no new endings will be added.
Why?
The simple idea of adding a fourth option that allows Shepard to refuse to pick a color has been floating on this forum since people first got to the ending.
No rewriting of the starchild dialogue. No change of the explanation of the reaper cycle, no change to already existing options. No additional gameplay.
A simple “no”. Well, maybe a renegade "no" and a paragon "no". With subsequent falling back onto your war assets.
If EMS is low – the non-canon bad ending: reapers win, everybody dies. One short cinematic.
If EMS is high enough – an epilogue that tells of countless casualties and of a long war that ended with remaining reapers being driven back into dark space.
If the rumors that the control choice will allow to eventually rebuilt the relays are true, such an ending would in the long run be similar to control: relays would be still around and the reapers will be somewhere out there.
Bioware is already doing cutscenes and cinematics for an extended epilogue for the three existing endings. Such a fourth ending would not require anything other then cutscenes and cinematics. It would not change anything except for Shepard who was supposed to be the character that we, the player, created.
Bioware keeps their vision, we keep our Shepard.
And yet throughout the series we do exactly those types of things repeatedly.RiouHotaru wrote...
Here's an original idea:
Saying "No" to the Catalyst's logic wouldn't change anything. It's like saying "I won't destroy the Relay" during Arrival.
Also trying to argue the Catalyst's logic to "convince" him he's wrong is like arguing with Balak during Bring Down The Sky or trying to talk down Kenson during Arrival. It goes nowhere.
Caz Tirin wrote...
And yet throughout the series we do exactly those types of things repeatedly.RiouHotaru wrote...
Here's an original idea:
Saying "No" to the Catalyst's logic wouldn't change anything. It's like saying "I won't destroy the Relay" during Arrival.
Also trying to argue the Catalyst's logic to "convince" him he's wrong is like arguing with Balak during Bring Down The Sky or trying to talk down Kenson during Arrival. It goes nowhere.
Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
You CAN say no. its called "not doing either option" it results in the crucible being destroyed by the reapers and the game being over.
Modifié par a.m.p, 06 avril 2012 - 07:32 .
Caz Tirin wrote...
I had forgotten about the Cain. Very good point.a.m.p wrote...
Caz Tirin wrote...
How dare you bring logic and sense to a meeting with artis... ya know what, I can't finish that statement without wanting to drink bleach.
The mantra that keeps being repeated throughout ME3 is "they can't be defeated by conventional means" and yet every time we take one down shortly after. Usually with "conventional" weapons through "unconventional" tactics/strategy. Pretty sure Kalros isn't conventional. Pretty sure someone on the ground, in the Reaper's face, with a targeting laser isn't conventional. If anything, I was left with the impression that we could overcome the Reapers, just not with the tactics and strategies we were all used to using. Even Javik said that the lack of diverse strategies was one of their downfalls and weaknesses. EVERYTHING pointed to the possibility of being able to stand up and defeat the Reapers without surrendering to idiotic non-choices.
Thank you. Yes, conventional weapons and unconventional tactics. But on a bigger scale than just one destroyer (by the way, in priority:Earth we take the destroyer cannon out with one shot from a cain, just saying).
I have a feeling that at some point eralier at development conventional victory was an option, so we get all those sequences. And then the main plot with the crucible was written.
And to elaborate on that, one can't even use the defense of "well, it had been weakened from all the fighting." Really? So, conventional fighting methods had weakened the Reaper to the point that a conventional method was able to take it out? hmmm...
Understandable and I agreea.m.p wrote...
Caz Tirin wrote...
And yet throughout the series we do exactly those types of things repeatedly.RiouHotaru wrote...
Here's an original idea:
Saying "No" to the Catalyst's logic wouldn't change anything. It's like saying "I won't destroy the Relay" during Arrival.
Also
trying to argue the Catalyst's logic to "convince" him he's wrong is
like arguing with Balak during Bring Down The Sky or trying to talk down
Kenson during Arrival. It goes nowhere.
The
problem is that we at this point do not have enough information to
definitively conclude whether we can or can not fight the reapers on our
own. There are arguments both for and against it, there are a dozen
long threads discussing this on the forum.
It is again up to the writing team and they could turn it any way they choose.
Hence the whole "we can't win by conventional means" mantra. Few of the encounters that Shepard wins against the Reapers are done conventionally. I covered all that in another post in here.CapnManx wrote...
Caz Tirin wrote...
I had forgotten about the Cain. Very good point.a.m.p wrote...
Caz Tirin wrote...
How dare you bring logic and sense to a meeting with artis... ya know what, I can't finish that statement without wanting to drink bleach.
The mantra that keeps being repeated throughout ME3 is "they can't be defeated by conventional means" and yet every time we take one down shortly after. Usually with "conventional" weapons through "unconventional" tactics/strategy. Pretty sure Kalros isn't conventional. Pretty sure someone on the ground, in the Reaper's face, with a targeting laser isn't conventional. If anything, I was left with the impression that we could overcome the Reapers, just not with the tactics and strategies we were all used to using. Even Javik said that the lack of diverse strategies was one of their downfalls and weaknesses. EVERYTHING pointed to the possibility of being able to stand up and defeat the Reapers without surrendering to idiotic non-choices.
Thank you. Yes, conventional weapons and unconventional tactics. But on a bigger scale than just one destroyer (by the way, in priority:Earth we take the destroyer cannon out with one shot from a cain, just saying).
I have a feeling that at some point eralier at development conventional victory was an option, so we get all those sequences. And then the main plot with the crucible was written.
And to elaborate on that, one can't even use the defense of "well, it had been weakened from all the fighting." Really? So, conventional fighting methods had weakened the Reaper to the point that a conventional method was able to take it out? hmmm...
A comment could probably be made about how it had a giant earth shaking cannon sticking out the top of it though (big gap in the armour, with lots of energy behind it). And that one on Rannoch was killed by repeated orbital bombardment, which still needed the guy in its face with the targetting laser before they could score a killing blow.
Yes, Reapers can be killed, but that doesn't mean a war against them can be won.
Killing Reapers does you no good unless you can keep them from harvesting people; which you can't do unless you can actually drive them away from population centers and keep them away. Long term, it doesn't matter how many Reapers Shep and company manage to take down, it doesn't matter if the fleet manages to keep itself alive and pulls off hit and fade attacks; they aren't fighting an occupation, they are trying to prevent an extermination. While they are hiding, and taking down individual Reapers or small groups, their races are being wiped out; along with the ability to replace battle casualties and build new ships and weapons.
Denying the Reapers objectives is the whole point of fighting them; because if you don't, you face extinction. You can't deny their objectives without focusing on holding territory against them; or you win the battle but lose the war. Liberating Earth would have been nothing but a waste of manpower if they had then just sent the fleet into hiding and allowed the Reapers to come back. Throw in indoctrination, and the likelyhood of your own population betraying you to the Reapers, and your task only gets harder.
RiouHotaru wrote...
Here's an original idea:
Saying "No" to the Catalyst's logic wouldn't change anything. It's like saying "I won't destroy the Relay" during Arrival.
Also trying to argue the Catalyst's logic to "convince" him he's wrong is like arguing with Balak during Bring Down The Sky or trying to talk down Kenson during Arrival. It goes nowhere.
tomcplotts wrote...
playing devil's advocate here, i think the "saying no" is by choosing the pretty red ending.
I see we share that approach.Caz Tirin worte...
Understandable and I agree that it can be argued either way. In fact, because of that alone, my Shepard's story and the one in the game do not play out the same way. Since I am unable (figuratively speaking) to accept the ending that's in the game, it allows me a freedom to appreciate the programmed ending as something more akin to fanfic than official. Which, in turn, will allow me to appreciate the ExCut DLC in a similar fashion. I know, it seems a little out there, but so is the "real" ending, so.... lol
Oldbones2 worte...
Most Retakers would have rather had the option to die fighting the Catalyst than bend our knee to it.
But we can't even do that.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 09:23 .
Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...
As I pointed out here - http://social.biowar.../index/11129235
Bioware can't really expect you to pick any option star child presents, as long as they respect your intelligence.
There is a "fourth" option when you refuse to choose quickly and crucible gets destroyed. Hell, now I am so desperate that I don't even mind the actual outcome to remain the same, as long as they give me more than just a "mission failure" dialog box.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 07 avril 2012 - 10:34 .
Retour en haut