913 réponses à ce sujet

[Elyiia]

Zolt51 wrote...

That just nonsense. If conventional victory was ever possible against the Reapers, then nothing you did in ME3 makes any sense. In fact, none of the 3 games make any sense.

So you have what, 8,000 EMS? Guess what, the reapers have at least 800,000. All your high EMS can hope to achieve is to build a fully functional crucible and protect it for the time it takes to dock with the Citadel, all the while taking pretty hideous losses. The whole fleet is basically a shield for the Crucible. Things are *that* desperate.

Change or redefine the ending options and scene, that at least I can understand, if it is very, very well done. But this? Please....

At least 800,000. I like how you provided evidence as to how you came to this number.

[Raynulf]

a.m.p wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If even these heavily damaged fleets could beat the Reapers through conventional means, then it begs the question of why no other cycle has beaten them. The only difference between this cycle and the others is that we have the relay network, but being able to gather your fleet all in one place doesn't matter when the Reapers can do the same thing.

It does. It makes all the difference in the world. It allows to use some goddamn strategy and tactics, that according to Bioware this war doesn't need.
Being able to maneuver, bring in reinforcements where they are needed, catch your enemy off guard when there are few of them, use hit-and-run tactics (which, according to the codex, work pretty well agains reapers) - that is something no cycle before this one could do.

It should not be a Lotr-style everyone at once head-on attack. It's the 22 century.
Also we don't really know how damaged the fleets are and even how strong they were to begin with. Neither do we have any real data on the reapers. The war assets screen said we were winning battles, Hackett said we were losing. It's all very vague and could be argued either way.

Yep.

The strategic value of the relay network is enormous, and as far as we know, it's always been used against the organic civilisations. Of course, in our cycle, Shepard discovered that the Citadel can control the relays (among doing other things) and told people about it. Right?

Let's put this in easily relatable terms: StarCraft II.


Standard Harvest Scenario:

[*]You start 20 vikings scattered 3-4 main bases and dozens of smaller ones on the map.
[*]Enemy has 50 battlecruisers.
[*]All your units are slowed to 1/5000th their normal movement rate.
[*]You lose. Every time.[/list] 
As-Shipped ME3 Scenario:

[*]You start 20 vikings scattered 3-4 main bases and dozens of smaller ones on the map.
[*]Enemy has 50 battlecruisers.
[*]No one's units are slowed and you are able to maneuver your units to attempt to fight the reapers.
[*]Things are not good for you, but not as bleak as above.[/list] 
But, imagine for a second that in the years since the battle for the citadel (3 years ish, all counted), some effort was put into actually digging below the surface of the Citadel and figuring out how its control systems worked. Then we have Scenario 3.
 
The Scenario ME1 Set Us Up For:

[*]You start 20 vikings scattered 3-4 main bases and dozens of smaller ones on the map.
[*]Enemy has 50 battlecruisers.
[*]The enemy's units are slowed to 1/2000th their usual speed.[/list] 
Now, you can't fight 50 battlecruisers with 20 vikings and win - but by having the advantage of mobility you don't need to.
 
Ultimately, the enemy's progress will be slow and easily predicted, allowing you time to evacuate threatened bases, ramp up production in safe ones and keep tabs on their movement. And here things get fun:
·         If the enemy stays clumped in a handful of big groups: While the enemy will take minimal initial losses, they also don't impede your resource production, allowing you to focus evac efforts to only a handful of bases while using the rest of the map to fuel your war production. Ultimately, it becomes a race to see if you can out-build the reapers.
·         If they split up to try and break your war production by attacking multiple bases at once (this seems on par with their strategy from ME3), then you face a lot of smaller groups forming an expanding battlefront. In this scenario you produce resources from the 'safe' bits of the map while using everything you have to hit their small 1-4 battlecruiser groups in surprise attacks
 
 
Either way: While it will be a tough fight, you have a definite chance of victory against the battlecruiser swarm.
 
 
Applying this to ME3: If reapers stuck to huge fleets to minimise losses, the harvest would be millennia rather than centuries, all the while the entire galaxy is in full-scale war production to fight them. If reapers spread out to crippled more planets, they become vulnerable as organics are able to focus multiple fleets against small splinter groups of reapers - essentially a death from a thousand cuts.
 
Would it be a guaranteed or trivial thing? No. The reapers would be an tide of destruction that slowly creeps across the galaxy. But it would have been plausible and (in my opinion) more satisfying than finding you left a magical super weapon blueprint hidden behind the sofa.

[a.m.p]

Zolt51 wrote...

That just nonsense. If conventional victory was ever possible against the Reapers, then nothing you did in ME3 makes any sense. In fact, none of the 3 games make any sense.

Why not? Up until we meet Liara on Mars there is zero indication that we are going to get our easy reaper off button. So since ME1 I was preparing, as best I could, to fight them with what I had - which were the forces of the galaxy.

In ME1 I started by making friends with the krogan that soon became clan chief and the daughter of a quarian admiral. And a bunch of other people. Their contribution to stopping Sovereign helped them become influential in their respective societies.

In ME2 I found the salarian who could cure the genophage and a whole geth consensus, who all wanted peace. Then I replaced the galaxy's most influential information broker with my good asari friend.

In ME3 I brought all that together, found out that my turian friend actually had some connections too (nice of you to remember that at least now, Garrus) and then spent 99% of the game building up my allied forces.

Not to use them to escort a giant fragile dark energy device into the middle of reaper land - I didn't find out about that until halfway through the ending. To "Take back Earth". And fight the reapers in general. To buy time for the crucible to be built. Nobody knew how it would even work, let alone that it would need to be brought to Earth. For all they knew, they just had to find the catalyst, plug it into the crucible right there at the construction site and it would activate. And then something would happen that would maybe kill reapers. Or not, and then they would have to keep fighting with what they had.

How would a conventional (or a semi-conventional crucible-involving) victory option make all of that make no sense?

The only thing it would directly contradict is the half dozen lines from Hackett that we can never beat them conventionally, and I don't argue with that. And at the same time it would fix part of the biggest ending problems. Without changing existing content and redefining options, which is what Bioware doesn't want to do.

Don't get me wrong. I would fully support a very, very well done page1 rewrite of the starchild scene. But I don't see that happening with the way things are now.

Modifié par a.m.p, 18 avril 2012 - 09:53 .

[Raynulf]

After reading through quite a few pages of this, a pattern among many posters is that of passionate defense of Bioware - to the point where it appears many are intepretating ideas for alternative scenarios as an attack against a company they care about.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with "what if"s. Indeed, it is a credit to Bioware that people care enough about this franchise to spend time, effort and energy thinking through and documenting ideas about alternative scenarios.


And on a more general note: Just because it was published doesn't make it gospel.


On to this one specifically.

inko1nsiderate wrote...

No, you're missing the point.  The whole damn game you are told 'you can't beat the Reapers conventionally'.  In fact, the whole series you are.  Every cycle before you has tried conventional, and non-conventional, means to defeat the Reapers and failed.  The protheans had better technology, and a larger empire, and still they lost.  They were even willing to go to extreme lengths to win.  Still lost. 

I have to disagree with you here, and say that you are missing the point.

Every cycle has tried to fight the reapers after being stomped all over by a surprise attack that made them as strategically dangerous to the reapers as a kitten in a sock.

The point of ME1, was that the last of the Protheans died to give us a chance at fighting back, by preventing the Citadel ambush + relay lockdown that so screwed them over.

Next: In Mass Effect 1, there was no magic wand to make it better. You fought Sovereign conventionally (in the sense of - shooting them with guns), and you won. In Mass Effect 2, there was no magic wand, you fought the Collectors conventionally, and you won. In Mass Effect 3, Anderson sends you off to gather the fleets of the galaxy to fight them conventionally... and you get a call from your old buddy Hackett who promply tells you that they can't be beaten conventionally, and you need to go get a magic wand from Mars.

Because Hackett, having fought one engagement with the reapers, is completely infallible?

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Even if you have some justification for this new technology that pops up at the end, you've still broken the narative.  The end with this 'conventional' option would be shoe horned in, and it would be disjointed. 

How does a magic wand that rewrites the nature of life be narratively in keeping with the entire mass effect series, and continuing to do what you have always done - shoot them with guns - be breaking the narrative? Again, please read and understand the story being told before the start of ME3.

There was nothing smooth or elegant about the Crucible, let alone the StarKid. Both were jammed into the game with little preparation or consideration of backstory. Simply removing StarKid and having the Crucible play a less... silly... role, instead having the galaxy save itself, rather than be rescued by space magic would be far more in keeping with ME1 & ME2.

inko1nsiderate wrote...
Why would Hackette keep saying the crucible is the only way (he says it as you go to Mars, not even a full 10 minutes into the game), and keep harping on the 'can't beat the Reapers convetionally' all damn game if it weren't true?  

StarKid ain't god, and neither is Hackett.

He's an old soldier who'se been given the plans to a megaweapon that will save him having to throw his men and women into the meatgrinder of the reapers.

He's allowed to be wrong.

inko1nsiderate wrote...
If at the the end of the game you get a short conversation: 'Uh, turns out we built some new weapon.  Sorry, I realize this Crucible business sounds great, but we have to do what we said was never going to happent he whole game, and abbandon the Crucible even though we put every effort into building it.  Oh, and we were able to do it without access to the galaxy's best scientists, beacuse they were all working on the Crucible'.  It raises a lot of questions.  As many, if not more, than the current ending.

Let me get this straight. Shepard proving popular assumption wrong raises more questions than StarKid, Synthesis or what the hell was up with the Normandy?

No. Sorry, but no.

People make grandiose statements about what is and isn't possible. Shepard proves them wrong. At least, that was the script of the previous two games.

inko1nsiderate wrote...

To make your ending fit, you'd have to re-write the entire game.  Even if the endings suck, and need to be entirely re-written and replaced wholesale, you can't expect anyone to sit down and change the entire story they've told just to make this conventional warfare ending fit.  If there is to be an alternative ending, it can't be this.  You have to use the crucible in some way or change the entire game.

You are correct in a sense.

The Crucible is, frankly, an ass-pull. I've gone over the reasons why it's a bleeding cancer within the narrative in other threads and I'm tired  so not doing so again.

Sadly, as it is jammed in right at the start, surgical removal is not possible at this point.  So the ending does need to 'use' it in some fashion - or at least do something with it.

My preference? Blow it up.

No, really: Lure reapers in, send allies away, detach it from the citadel while setting it to overload, close the arms, Crucible + most of the Reapers go boom, citadel (which is bigger and tougher than a mass relay) weathers the explosion. Fleets mop up the remainder.

But that's just me.

Modifié par Raynulf, 18 avril 2012 - 10:12 .

[a.m.p]

@ Raynulf
Thanks for dropping by

A possible scenario to add the relay control to the equation:
We refuse starchild and proceed fighting the reapers with our fleet. Maybe call in reinforcements from other places - because I'm one of those heretics that can not believe that 100% of the combat-capable ships are in Sol. Somebody has to be holding the other crucial locations - so call some of them.
We kick the reapers out of Sol, thus taking back the citadel. Among the citadel survivors we find those weird guys from ME1 who were snooping around the keepers, who tell us that witnessing the citadel transportation to Earth helped them discover some of it's hidden systems, among others - the relay-controlling one. Throw some of those best minds of the galaxy at it and then, finally, we can use it to lock reapers in their clusters.

I think I'm getting good at various ***-pulls.

No, really: Lure reapers in, send allies away, detach it from the citadel while setting it to overload, close the arms, Crucible + most of the Reapers go boom, citadel (which is bigger and tougher than a mass relay) weathers the explosion. Fleets mop up the remainder.

Completely in favor of.

Modifié par a.m.p, 18 avril 2012 - 10:20 .

[phantomdasilva]

I can't believe people keep on going on about Hackett's comment

Simple fix, once you have 5000+ EMS, add some dialogue of Hackett is surprised and never expected Shepard to gather such a large fleet and believes that they may stand a chance in fighting the reaper fix.

Apparently rumours are that Hackett is recording dialog for the extended cut and just adding in that dialog when you launch priority Earth will pretty much solve it. No real drastic change will be needed.

This explains why Hackett thought it was impossible before (because he never considered it was possible to gather such a large fleet. Therefore he re-evaluated the chances when Shepard surprised him with the size of the fleet.

Really regarding the weaking of Reapers. Unless you re-write the ending, the reapers will be weaken anyway due to the presence of the starchild and a magic off button switch. . The refuse ending is flawed but it is less flaweed than what we got in the current ending.

If we accept that Bioware is not going to change the ending than the best we can hope for is an ending that improves it even if the ending isn't perfect

IMO, the conventional victory would have been more satisfying if ME3 main plot mission was based on stopping the reapers in divding the galaxy. The first mission after leaving earth should have been the defence of the citadel in stoping the reapers from shutting down the relays and therefore prevent them from isolating the galaxy, and then create a mystery about weeding out indoctrinated political leaders that are secretly sabotaging the fleet and inciting politcal tensions between the various races. Have indoctrinated leaders causing civil wars and shepard has to stop it and then work with cerberus in how to break indoctrination. Play through the theme that Reapers are winning by dividing the galaxy and the only way to stop. them is to prevent their interference in dividing the fodrce and then with diplomacy (if you are paragon) or blackmail (if you are renegade) unite the galaxy to stop the reapers.

If there must be a superweapon, has it a weapon tha just really powerful that gives the military a fighting chance rather than a reaper off switch.

The conventioanl victory would have been far more powerful if the game was based around that instead of tacked on to the current ending. NEvertheless beggars can't be chooser and I accept that the refusal ending because I believe it's the best way to salvage the ending from what we have with the starchild even if it is imperfect

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 18 avril 2012 - 01:52 .

[the slynx]

phantomdasilva wrote...

Really regarding the weakening of Reapers. Unless you re-write the ending, the reapers will be weaken anyway due to the presence of the starchild and a magic off button switch. . The refuse ending is flawed but it is less flaweed than what we got in the current ending.

Precisely.

One of the things that appeals to me most about the 'reject Sky Kid,' other than just not liking the character or its usage, is how powerful a simple no is in preserving the Reapers are enemies.

By rejecting Sky Kid's choices, you can also and implicitly reject his explanations regarding the Reapers: their motivations, their aims in reaping, etc. If you don't believe in his choices, it's a short step to disbelieve in much of the rest he claims. So if you think Sky Kid's logic is absurd, or that the Reapers as henchmen for Sky Kid and his absurd logic is disappointing, you can reject it. The Reapers can maintain a frightening inscrutability, the kind of profound otherness that made Harbinger's conversation with you way back in ME1 so memorable.

With the way the game ends now, such a choice would allow BioWare to keep its Reaper motivation, but simultaneously let fans keep their rejection. The developers can have their understood beliefs, but not have to commit one way or the other.

This is one point I think sometimes people aren't teasing out sufficiently. The rejection option may still have plot holes and lore problems, but because large portions of Sky Kid's arguments can be rejected, it's also a tacit repudiation of some of those issues (depending on how the rejection is handled). Granted, rejection leaves some plot holes and some problems. But it also allows you to remove Sky Kid's conversation as being trustworthy - without BioWare having to remove Sky Kid himself from the game, or endorsing your interpretation.

I just don't see a more viable compromise out there.

[a.m.p]

phantomdasilva wrote...

I can't believe people keep on going on about Hackett's comment

Simple fix, once you have 5000+ EMS, add some dialogue of Hackett is surprised and never expected Shepard to gather such a large fleet and believes that they may stand a chance in fighting the reaper fix.

Apparently rumours are that Hackett is recording dialog for the extended cut and just adding in that dialog when you launch priority Earth will pretty much solve it. No real drastic change will be needed.

Actually that is an interesting question for people who keep pointing at Hackett. If a couple of lines acknowledging that there is a chance were to be added to the pre-Cronos station conversation (the one where he currently stupidly suggests to throw the fleets at Earth even if the catalyst isn't found) if the EMS requirements were met, would a (semi)conventional option be acceptable then?

[Byronic-Knight]

phantomdasilva wrote...

I can't believe people keep on going on about Hackett's comment

Simple fix, once you have 5000+ EMS, add some dialogue of Hackett is surprised and never expected Shepard to gather such a large fleet and believes that they may stand a chance in fighting the reaper fix.

Apparently rumours are that Hackett is recording dialog for the extended cut and just adding in that dialog when you launch priority Earth will pretty much solve it. No real drastic change will be needed.

This explains why Hackett thought it was impossible before (because he never considered it was possible to gather such a large fleet. Therefore he re-evaluated the chances when Shepard surprised him with the size of the fleet.

Hackett: "I've got to hand it to you Commander, when these damn things showed up I didn't think we had a hope in hell. It won't be easy, but seeing what you've done, I think we can stand to weather the flames. We all owe you a debt of gratitude." 

Shepard: "Thank you, sir." 

Have the exchange happen when Hackett boards the Normandy, right before he steps up on the bridge to give his speech about not falling but prevailing. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 19 avril 2012 - 03:58 .

[a.m.p]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

I can't believe people keep on going on about Hackett's comment

Simple fix, once you have 5000+ EMS, add some dialogue of Hackett is surprised and never expected Shepard to gather such a large fleet and believes that they may stand a chance in fighting the reaper fix.

Apparently rumours are that Hackett is recording dialog for the extended cut and just adding in that dialog when you launch priority Earth will pretty much solve it. No real drastic change will be needed.

This explains why Hackett thought it was impossible before (because he never considered it was possible to gather such a large fleet. Therefore he re-evaluated the chances when Shepard surprised him with the size of the fleet.

Hackett: "I've got to hand it to you Commander, when these damn things showed up I didn't think we had a hope in hell. It won't be easy, but seeing what you've done, I think we can stand to weather the flames. We all owe you a debt of gratitude." 

Shepard: "Thank you, sir." 

Have the exchange happen when Hackett boards the Normandy, right before he steps up on the bridge to give his speech about not falling but prevailing. 

Or that. I am really curious whether that would be acceptable. Anyone?

[Noelemahc]

Would be for me.
"Well, we still have this ridiculously expensive superweapon which we don't know what it does in case we realize we don't have enough forces, right? Not like trying to use something we don't know how to use is safer than sticking to what we know how to do well. Especially since Commander Shepard found out on Rannoch that if you aim at the Reapers' weapons, they are completely unarmored and will stagger and at the very least will be unable to fire back. Oh, and that they do not retreat, and all their weapons are forward-mounted -- therefore can easily be flanked. I believe we can frell them up, Commander."
"Right behind you, Admiral."

Modifié par Noelemahc, 19 avril 2012 - 08:29 .

[a.m.p]

You, Noelemahc, don't count, you've been here for a while and your fourth ending proudly hangs on the first page. (And I'm reading Miranda's bit right now).

I'd like some input from people whose first reaction to the suggestion is "Hackett keeps telling us we have no chance for the entirety of the game, therefore conventional victory is not possible".

[a.m.p]

So I managed to get some input here. Now to hunting down every other person who ever referred to Hackett in this forum and asking them the same question one at a time.

This is a morning bump, so people can vote some more.

[Blind2Society]

This is a good simple fix. Add the option to tell him to go screw and defeat them conventionally. EMS would then be allowed to play it's rightful part.

Also, the catalyst should be replaced by Harbinger.

[Eterna]

A conventional defeat totally invalidates the other endings. It makes it so that their is no reason to choose the other endings. So I say no, the final decision should be a hard choice, not an obvious one.

A conventional defeat is also likely to be very stupid and cause more plot holes than we already have. You guys are way too desperate for a happy ending.

Modifié par Eterna5, 20 avril 2012 - 04:50 .

[Blind2Society]

@Eterna5: How so? Control would be Shepard deciding he wants all the power for himself thus renegade. You would choose synthesis if you felt that was the right way to go and destroy would be thrown out. And if you were a paragon Shep you tell them to go screw and kick their synthetic asses. EMS would then actually play a role and we might be able to see our war assets in action.

To me this seems like the only way to do it.

[Necrotron]

I had put off getting into this thread because I think the ending needs an entirely new sequence, but I just have to say, that is a great summary of thread links and arguements you have saved there. Well done.

[Eterna]

Blind2Society wrote...

@Eterna5: How so? Control would be Shepard deciding he wants all the power for himself thus renegade. You would choose synthesis if you felt that was the right way to go and destroy would be thrown out. And if you were a paragon Shep you tell them to go screw and kick their synthetic asses. EMS would then actually play a role and we might be able to see our war assets in action.

To me this seems like the only way to do it.

Synthesis and control still destroy the mass Relays, everyone would pick the new option. There is no choice, and it's literally impossible without some heavy duty plot armor and terrible writing to beat the reapers conventionally.

This threads just offers a way to cheapen the ending as a whole.

Modifié par Eterna5, 20 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[Blind2Society]

Eterna5 wrote...

Synthesis and control still destroy the mass Relays, everyone would pick the new option. There is no choice

Maybe.

Eterna5 wrote...
and it's literally impossible without some heavy duty plot armor and terrible writing to beat the reapers conventionally.

I disagree. All info presented about not being able to beat them conventionally is speculation and speculation based off uncofirmed information at that. No other cycle had united the entire galaxy against the Reapers and that alone makes me feel it's possible.

[Noelemahc]

Eterna5 wrote...
A conventional defeat totally invalidates the other endings. It makes it so that their is no reason to choose the other endings. So I say no, the final decision should be a hard choice, not an obvious one.

A conventional defeat is also likely to be very stupid and cause more plot holes than we already have. You guys are way too desperate for a happy ending.

There is a reason, you can't actually know in advance whether you will win. Couldn't've, anyway, if the game took more into account that a single dumbed-down arbitrarily generated number dubbed "military strength".

A conventional defeat would be far more rewarding if you could pull it off. Yes, tacking it onto the game as it is might feel stupid, but that's no fault of the conventional method's logic. It's just how the game's narrative is constructed around the aforementioned single number being the prevalent factor in how the end was supposed to have theoretically played out had it had more than one ending. I sincerely hope the EC will rectify that, or at least make it less apparent that metagaming rules all. Remember how awesome the suicide mission felt until people metagamed the sequence for "guaranteed win"?

[phantomdasilva]

Eterna5

"No reason to choose other options"

Actually there is. If you have small amount of EMS than you lose. Hell you can even raised the EMS required to absurd high levels (in the 7000+)  that the only way you can achieve it is if you played the entire Mass Effect trilogy. Otherwise you lose.

Esentially this could be the ending that only rewards people who played the game from the start. Everyone else it's a defeat

"Happy ending"

Also people have mention that they will find the conventional victory ending acceptable even if the normandy and the entire crew gets killed (although I wouldn't choose that if I was in creative control of the series but I would accept it if Bioware goes that route). So this is hardly a "happy ending". Especially when this is the ending where the fleet receives the most lost in lives and more allies will die in this ending.

Lastly, they only defeat the reapers around SOL system. Which may well be the bulk of the fleet but not all the reapers in the galaxy (similarly Return of the jedi, the empire hasn't been destroyed it just that it was a turning point in the war).
.
If Shepard survives this ending it does makes narrative sense that in the end. shepard says there are more reapers out there and I'm going out there to stop them after a moment of reflecting the hard fought and perhaps great cost out of the victory.

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 20 avril 2012 - 08:25 .

[a.m.p]

@Blind2Society, Bathaius
Thanks. Trying to keep everything relevant in one place. If you happen to know something significant that I missed, would gladly add it.

@Eterna5
To you I'd like to pose the same question that I asked Optimystic_X on that recent thread. Would a scenario like this:

Suppose before the fleets are ordered to Earth and Hackett comes aboard, if you reach the required EMS level, Hackett tells you how this fleet is the biggest force the galaxy has ever gathered and that maybe we do
have a chance after all. A few lines acknowleding this. And then the (semi)conventional option, whatever it would be , would unlock upon meeting the catalyst.

Now add the price of picking 'no'. The war continues, most of the people alive at that moment die horribly over the next few months/years. There will never be a certainty that all reapers were destroyed. If you insist that option kills me/ my LI/ my squad/all of the listed, I'm fine with that too.

While the existing options would allow to solve the problem then and there, minimize casualties and maybe, if
rumors of EC are true, soon rebuild the relays.

still cheapen the existing endings and the final choice for you?

Modifié par a.m.p, 20 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[George Costanza]

I was genuinely amazed when I got to the end of the game and the crucible was actually a weapon. I thought for sure that it was another method of control left behind by the Reapers to trick us. I didn't think they'd just introduce an off switch at the eleventh hour. It's such a lame concept.

Personally, I'm with the we should have had the option to defeat them conventionally crowd. I don't like the idea of the crucible. I find it ludicrous that it was built in such a short time. I find it ridiculous that it can somehow magically fuse synthetic parts into organic beings and vice versa. I find it absurd that a ghost boy lives there and tells the Reapers to wipe us out every now and again to stop us wiping ourselves out for good. The whole idea of it is ridiculous.

Conventional victory would have been much more satisfying, it would have given much more entertaining battles (instead of just fighting the same Cannibal/Marauder/Brute/Banshee waves over and over) and it would actually have made sense. The galaxy uniting to take out the common foe against overwhelming odds. I like it. Sounds a lot better than, "Oh hey we just found these blueprints for the most powerful weapon ever devised".

[a.m.p]

About metagaming. There was that huge verbal battle last night on the same subject, and the word "metagaming" was thrown around a lot by both sides.

It's one sub-problem of the 'Shepard out of character' problem. The only reason to even consider the given options is metagaming knowledge that the options at the end of a game about stopping reapers would likely stop reapers. Shepard has no reason to think so and moreover, will never know the consequences of the choices. because they die in most outcomes and the one where they don't they are told they would.

Let's compare previous decisions with this one:
1) Rachni queen. She says she's totally good and won't betray me. I can save her. If I don't trust her, I can kill her and watch her die right there.

2) Grunt. A tank with a huge, probably dangerous krogan. There is no reason to think he won't try and kill me. I have the logical option to not open it. Nobody takes it because metagaming - we know Grunt is a squadmate, but it's there, because it's a logical option to have.

3) Legion - same. A geth that didn't kill me. I can risk activating it, if I want, I can get rid of it if I want.

4) Heretics. If I activate him he tells me how all geth are totally good, except for these ones and we can rewrite them. If I don't trust him, I can blow them up right there.

5) The collectror base (which could have benefited from some dialogue making it clear that if I don't blow it up TIM takes it with his own forces right then). Again if I mistrust TIM that much, I can blow it up right there (let's put aside the question of how much diffrence that made).

And then we get to the catalyst. Who tells us that they are totally saving us. I have no reason to trust him. And I can in no way act upon that mistrust.

Even if conventional victory would be impossible (which is debatable and we're at page 21 of one of the dozen debates) - in-character, with the information she has at that point my Shepard simply can't go with any of the given options. It's not giving up. She doesn't know enough about reapers to know for sure it will or will not be possible. It's putting your trust into your forces rather than the word of the reaper boss. Which is what every Shepard had always done.

[Noelemahc]

I find it absurd that a ghost boy lives there and tells the Reapers to wipe us out every now and again to stop us wiping ourselves out for good.

Clarification: the ghost boy lives in the Citadel. He's only a boy to Shepard. To quote Silent Hill, "They look to you... like monsters?"

The Crucible was what caused him to want to talk to Sheppy Shep, he couldn't believe organics could build it, let alone actually use it properly. And he's right, we still didn't know how to use it. When "shoot the smashable thing" is a valid option, that's something wrong going on right there.

If I activate him he tells me how all geth are totally good, except for these ones and we can rewrite them

Better yet, in ME3, the spared heretics are the main advocates for calling on the Reapers for help! Legion says so on the dreadnaught. That's why saving them actually counts against you in the "making peace" moment.

in-character, with the information she has at that point my Shepard
simply can't go with any of the given options. It's not giving up. She
doesn't know enough about reapers to know for sure it will or will not
be possible. It's putting your trust into your forces rather than the
word of the reaper boss. Which is what every Shepard had always done.

We should picturize this and just post the picture whenever the issue comes up again, I think.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 20 avril 2012 - 09:00 .