481 réponses à ce sujet

[xsamplexample]

Great video! Very well spoken!

[Joccaren]

Sleep for 13 hours and 10 pages pop up. Wow. 

To keep context:

[quote]Joccaren wrote...

Ok, a question:
Why do so many people feel that it is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally. Yes, they are strong, but I was always given the impression from the game that we could defeat them if we united the Galaxy against them, so could someone please provide some compelling evidence for why a 100% completionist fleet at 7.8K EMS would be unable to defeat the Reapers.

Firstly, a few disclaimers:
-No "Hackett says so".
Saren says its impossible to stop Sovereign. Did you stop Sovereign?
It is said to be suicide to attack the Collector base. Can you get your whole squad out alive?
-Secondly, use in game stuff to prove your point. For example, 4 Dreadnoughts without Thanix guns take down 1 Reaper Capital Ship. In Codex, check it. Thanix guns are more effective, and thus less Dreadnoughts are needed. It also cites that most ships have been outfitted with Thanix guns.
-No "Another cycle would have done it were it possible". There are numerous refutes to this. 1: Attrition. Another cycle failed, but they weakened them enough for us to succeed. 2: We are the first cycle to have not had the Citadel taken and Relays shut down. Every other cycle has had to rely on conventional FTL travel and isolated planet defences, whilst we get the Relay network and united fleets.
-Assume the beset possible fleet to fight the Reapers. Highest EMS possible, every ship from every fleet.

I will accept a "It would take away from the power of the Reapers IMO" thing - as that is a legitimate opinion. I, however, feel opposite. Not every enemy devastates Thessia, Earth, Palavan, Dekuuna, Irune, Kar'Shan, [Forgotten name of Hanar Homeworld]. Not a single enemy has killed a member of Shepard's squad before [Remember, assuming best case until now] - but Thane and Legion MUST die, whilst Mordin, Grunt, Jack, Miranda, Morinth {Actually, Morinth is turned to a Banshee in the end no matter what so...} Ashley/Kaiden - all can end up dead. Yeah, that's Cerberus too. Cerberus are working for the Reapers however, thanks to Indoctrinated TIM.

So. Why can the Reapers no be defeated conventionally. I'm not saying it should be easy. It should require every damn fleet in the Galaxy and most of them will still die. However, I see comments saying not only that we wouldn't win the war against the Reapers, but many saying we wouldn't even win the battle for Earth. I don't see why.

So, respectfully, could someone explain this to me? Thanks.[/quote]


[quote]Versidious wrote... 

Well, it could be pointed out that, as you gather your fleets to attack the Reapers, they are already winning *everywhere* , all at once.[/quote]
Yes, they are winning everywhere. They are fighting several non-unified forces across the galaxy, and those non-unified forces are getting their asses kicked. A unified force, however, focusing on one world, would overwhelm the Reapers. There are around than 20,000 Reapers in existance [Leviathin of Dis is 1 billion years old. Divide 50,000 and you get 20,000. Throughout the cycles, several Reapers have been killed or incapacitated. In general, 1 Reaper is made per cycle. However, note the Protheans were unable to be made into Reapers - so that is another cycle wasted as losses were not recouped. This may have happened several times in 20,000 cycles]
So, around 20,000 Reapers v my fleet. Quarian Flotilla: 50K or so ships. Geth fleet is larger, stronger and has more dreadnoughts as they weren't held by the Treaty of Firaxen. That is over 50K ships. With just the Quarians and the Geth that is enough ships for a 5:1 Ratio. For the whole potential Reaper fleet. I'd wager less than half is at Earth. 10:1 Ratio. Add in the Alliance ships, the Turian Ships, Asari, Salarian - The Reapers are outnumbered and outgunned. Earth at the very least could be recouped. After that, taking out the smaller lots of Reapers throughout the Galaxy to ensure minimal losses whilst doing so, before focusing down the remaining high level Reaper threats.
Taking on a number of smaller enemies with Overwhelming force is a far more sound strategy than facing one large enemy with overwhelming force.

[quote]It could be pointed out that they waltz up to the heavily-defended Citadel and take it over in the space of the couple of hours it takes for you to storm the Cerberus base,[/quote]
I never noticed the Citadel being heavily defended actually. The Destiny Ascension - the flagship of its fleet - isn't there, and it is likely that all fleets began mobilising to gather at a unified location for an attack to capture whatever the Catalyst was, and end the Reaper threat. The Citadel defence force would have remained behind, but they are no match for Giant Sentient starships - even with hacked Cerberus turrets.


[quote]and that in the invasion of Earth, they wipe out half the human Navy in the space of a day.[/quote]
Again, 1 fleet - not even the strongest fleet - vs the largest concentration of Reapers. Human, Quarian, Geth, Turian, Asari, Salarian, Volus, Terminus, Batarian - ect. fleets vs 1 Reaper fleet at a time, smells like victory to me.

[quote]It could also be pointed out that Saren was indoctrinated and a lone gunman, whereas Hackett is the Alliance's highest-ranking Admiral.[/quote] 
Yet Hackett has never fought a force like the Reapers before, and never with a fleet made of every ship in the galaxy. I'd say he's out of his depth in deciding what is and isn't plausible in this type of war.

[quote]The Reapers still have many advantages. To remind you, they pretty much ignore kinetic barriers, as they have beams that are what Thanix cannons wish they were,[/quote]
Beams that can be dodged. Check the successful Sword battle cinematic: Reapers fire at us, we dodge their shots. 1 ship falls, but so does 1 Reaper capital ship.

[quote]and that 4 is the number of conventional dreadnoughts required to owerwhelm a Sovereign class Reaper's shield quickly enough that it doesn't destroy all of them.[/quote]
Sovereign class dreadnoughts are what you'd call rare in the Reaper fleet. According to the Codex, the vast majority of Reaper ships are mere destroyers. 1 Dreadnought could likely take them down, as could a handful of cruisers - again, without Thanix guns. Most ships have been equipped with Thanix guns.


[quote]In other words, to win, you need a ratio of the equivalent four dreadnoughts to the each equivalent Sovereign-class Reaper, or better.[/quote]
Over 100 Dreadnoughts [All with Thanix guns, take the notch down to 3 to 1] could take out over 33 Sovereign class Reapers in an engagement between just that lot. Add cruiser Thanix Fire, Frigate Thanix fire and the fact that you are engaging small portions of the Reaper fleet at once, and that Sovereign classes are relatively rare in the Reaper fleet - Reapers are in a bit of trouble in each individual battle.

[quote]In an engagement of equivalent numbers, the citadel races are at a severe disadvantage. We know that the Reapers are extremely numerous, though we of course don't know exactly how much that extremely actually is.
But I suspect it does not favour that ratio.[/quote]
We can take a reasonable guess at each. See above.

[quote]All this, by the way, is after they've effectively been nerfed from Mass Effect 1, where Sovereign was able to ignore  the combined firepower of the entire Arcturus fleet + remaining council fleet until Shepard disrupted its shields. They've also become less maneuverable, with the Turians managing to outmaneuvre them for a while (Until the Reapers use their own tactics against them: See codex entries), when in ME1 Sovereign is able to make 'a turn that would shear any of our ships in half', and move faster than any Geth ships whilst still having strong enough KBs to ram Turian dreadnoughts into itty-bitty pieces.[/quote]
This I wholeheartedly agree with. Sovereign was one badass Reaper, and I was a little disappointed by how weakly they were presented in ME3.


[quote]The Reapers also have better scanners, better drives, and the ability to go through several mass relays at once, without having to pause between jumps. They can pretty much pick when and where they fight.[/quote]
Agreed, though at the same time they can't pick who they fight. Taking down the Reaper forces at Earth, then moving on to slowly wittle away at Reaper numbers throughout the rest of the galaxy, would work in our favour for wiping them out. Would take a long time, and there would be a lot of casualties - but if there weren't it really wouldn't do justice to the Reaper's strength.


[quote]They may not have decapitated galactic government at the beginning, but they clearly don't think that they needed to, because they didn't bother with it until near the end, when they had the crucible to worry about![/quote]
Which is an interesting point. They never attacked the Citadel and shut down all Relays - which was always their main battle strategy. It makes little sense as to why this never happened: Completely cut off the entire galaxy and its fleets, and thereby be left with minimum casualties on your own side, or fight conventionally, face higher casualties on your side and allow all species to manouvre around the galaxy still. Reaper tactics: Out the window as soon as the invasion began.


[quote]Honestly, I would much rather have spent the game trying to learn about the Reapers, discover their weakspots, then lure them into a trap and break their back in a big fleet battle, instead of building a superweapon.[/quote]
Agreed. Honestly, what I foresaw for ME3 was gathering the galactic fleets, whilst finding out an effective way to hit the Reapers, then throwing it all in. I've covered the 5 or so endings that would be possible from this somewhere else, but briefly:
-Epic failure. Everyone dies, nothing passed down to next cycle.
-Moderate Failure. Everyone dies, Liara sends her message and it is found by next cycle
-Failure: Galaxy falls, but takes out some Reapers on its way. Liara's message is found by next cycle, who use the Citadel Relay to Darkspace as an ambush location when the next Reaper invasion starts - hitting the Reapers the second they leave Darkspace and come through the Citadel.
-Success: Galaxy fights Reapers and wins, but with extreme losses. Earth may be saved, but Palaven, Thessia and numerous other worlds are lost. Majority of fleets destroyed. Ill will towards humanity as their homeworld was saved, whilst others were sacrificed.
-Epic Successs: Galaxy defeats Reapers in the most effective way possible. Reaper forces are decimated. Earth is saved, Palaven and Thessia are saved, as is the majority of the galaxy. Fleets all but destroyed, but the men and women lost are regarded as heroes, resulting in increased sign ups to peacekeeping forces throughout the Galaxy. Galaxy enters a golden age of peace.

Cliche? Yeah. But hey, a lot of people like Cliche, and it does provide opportunites for a few different outcomes.


[quote]I would also have made there be relatively few full-sized Reapers (Though, then again, bear in mind that pretty much each harvested species becomes a Reaper, and that they've done this hundreds of times before. Even taking into account Prothean-like failures, and casualties, that's still a *lot* of Sovereigns),[/quote]
See above. Vast majority of Reaper forces are destroyers - the 170m kind - while there are relatively few Sovereign class Capital ships. They have done this approximately 20K times, and either 1 Sovereign class Reaper, or a few other Reapers [Destroyer, Troop Transport, Slaughter Ship], have come out of each cycle.


[quote]and much, much more badass. But that might have made it harder for the writers to find a good reason for Shepard to commit suicide on his own.   :-P[/quote]
Yeah, that is one of the main things I hate about the ending, and hell, I don't think a lot of people care about Shepard as much as they do him being the Shepard we wrote. Far more impactful would be something like the Normandy ramming Harbinger, taking him out to save Shepard or someone else. That is something we would feel. Joker, EDI, Traynor, Adams, Gabby, Donnely - our crew just died. A lot of people would feel that a lot more than Shepard's death. Yeah, Shepard wouldn't be a Christ figure - he wouldn't die on the Crucible before the Catalyst to save the Galaxy - but does he really need to be? He's our Shepard, and a lot of people are POd at the fact his death is forced in such a way, and a lot would rather it either happen naturally, or not at all.

[Allan Schumacher]

TreguardD wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


We're able to have Shepard empathize with the Geth, but then be put in a position that challenges the "We fight or we die" stance he held throughout the game.  If the Catalyst had mentioned "But all Vorcha will also die" then it's a bit easier to go "Eh... sorry Vorcha" because the player hasn't established that emotional connection with them.  I imagine any player that didn't like the Geth didn't have much issue with this decision either.

No. It would not be any easier, and that's the *point*.

I disagree, but it's not something that I'm able to prove since the Geth are the ones at stake.  All I have are the assumptions on how I might behave, so I'll concede the point.  For you it's a non issue which race is at stake.

Cheers.

[Warp92]

The is a great vid, it's like a documentary watched it twice ( obviously not in a row )

[Fingertrip]

You people will believe just about anything anyone says.

I personally hated it with a burning passion. It's all his subjective understanding and opinion on the matter, not a general concensus or backed by actual facts.

It's annoying.

[Oni Changas]

As I've said before, THIS needs to be the video to define Retake ME3. There was an excellent post made shortly before this vid went up as well. Keep it bumped.

[The Angry One]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TreguardD wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...


We're able to have Shepard empathize with the Geth, but then be put in a position that challenges the "We fight or we die" stance he held throughout the game.  If the Catalyst had mentioned "But all Vorcha will also die" then it's a bit easier to go "Eh... sorry Vorcha" because the player hasn't established that emotional connection with them.  I imagine any player that didn't like the Geth didn't have much issue with this decision either.

No. It would not be any easier, and that's the *point*.

I disagree, but it's not something that I'm able to prove since the Geth are the ones at stake.  All I have are the assumptions on how I might behave, so I'll concede the point.  For you it's a non issue which race is at stake.

Cheers.

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Angry One wrote...

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.  I see it as an unexpected consequence of building a superweapon that we didn't fully understand.  All the Catalyst describes is the result of said choice.

If anything is missing, it's an explanation as to why the Crucible's discharge cannot be made to avoid the Geth (or maybe it actually can?).

[ForceXev]

Well I'm glad I made it past all of the Star Trek love in the beginning, because it's a really good break down of the ending after that.

Genre -- I don't really think of Mass Effect as "techy" in the same way that Star Trek is.  Nobody in Mass Effect uses technobabble, that I can recall.  Maybe there's a lot of technobabble in the codex, I don't know -- I usually only read character stuff in there.  But in the game, Garrus just says "I'm in the middle of some calibrations," he doesn't put us to sleep by giving us the details.  So I personally didn't really need an explanation of the Crucible, and in fact I think the point was that nobody knew how it worked.

For me, Mass Effect went off the tracks in terms of genre because it was always firmly grounded in reality until the ending.  Mass Effect weapons may be technically "futuristic," but the they feel just like modern day weapons in the way they shoot and feel.  They go "bang, bang" not "pew, pew," and most of them seem to shoot bullets not lazer light beams.  Everything in the series is like this -- elevators run on rails, they don't appear to float on magical light (until the ending), artificial intelligences are stored in computers or in robotic machine-bodies (until the ending), and you interface with technology using computer terminals and keyboards not by sticking your hands into lightning or jumping into a pillar of light (until the ending).

Character focus -- I don't really need to know a whole lot about what happens to all of the ME2/ME3 companion characters at the end of the story, but I do want them to be involved in some way in the ending.  Even if it's just a sequence of cutscenes in which we see what they were doing while Shepard was doing his thing -- just to know that they were out there involved in the final fight in some way -- would make a significant difference.  The "goodbye" dialogue scenes you get to have with them before starting the final mission feels a bit like the writers wanted to just get the characters out of the way before they started the ending.  That's not right, the characters are important and really should have been part of the ending in some way.

Central Conflict -- This is explained very well in the video.  From the very start of the series, we are shown again and again just how big, mean, and nasty the Reapers are.  They are cold death in the form of space ships.  They are destroying the Earth.  They are killing millions.  And then you get to the ending, and this boy thing tells you that he controls the Reapers, that he is basically the leader of the Reapers.  That should immediately make Shepard pull out his gun and start shooting.  Catalyst Boy should really be the final boss fight, but instead they have a philosophical discussion while you can literally see Earth burning in the background, and then Shepard blindly follows the leader of the Reapers' suggestion to pick door #1, #2 or #3.  It's madness!

The other central conflicts in the game are the conflicts between Shepard and Saren in ME1, and between Shepard and The Illusive Man in ME2/ME3.  In ME1, Saren's goal is SYNTHESIS.  He talks about the evolution of organics being the merging of organic and synthetic life.  And of course TIM's goal is CONTROL.  That leaves me strangely concerned about the meaning of the ending when two of the three choices are so closely related to the two major indoctrinated characters in the series.  This is where Indoctrination Theory gets really interesting, but if you ignore that, what does this imply about the story?   Was Shepard wrong to go against Saren and The Illusive Man?  The ending would have us believe that Saren's goal (synthesis) and The Illusive Man's goal (control of the Reapers) are ultimately "good things" for the galaxy.  This all makes Shepard out to be a punk who had it all wrong the whole time.

Narrative Coherence -- I would have liked to see the list of inconsistencies in the video too, but I know they are there.  It's a lot of little things that you could probably explain a way with sentences that start with "Well, maybe..."  Normally you can do with one or two of those "well, maybe" situations, but when you have five, six, seven... it gets to be too much "well, maybe"ing.

Modifié par ForceXev, 09 avril 2012 - 04:48 .

[TreguardD]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.  I see it as an unexpected consequence of building a superweapon that we didn't fully understand.  All the Catalyst describes is the result of said choice.

If anything is missing, it's an explanation as to why the Crucible's discharge cannot be made to avoid the Geth (or maybe it actually can?).

The Angry One is making the point better than I can. If that's the option; then my choice is not to fire the weapon.

[The Angry One]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.  I see it as an unexpected consequence of building a superweapon that we didn't fully understand.  All the Catalyst describes is the result of said choice.

Considering the Catalyst (or it's creators) must've designed it in the first place I hold him at fault.

If anything is missing, it's an explanation as to why the Crucible's discharge cannot be made to avoid the Geth (or maybe it actually can?).

The fact that Shepard doesn't question anything starbaby says is what riles me up the most.
"Geth destroyed", "Okay", "Mass relays destroyed", "Okay", "Synthetics and organics fused!" "Okay".

[Dorrieb]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

<snip>

We're able to have Shepard empathize with the Geth, but then be put in a position that challenges the "We fight or we die" stance he held throughout the game.  If the Catalyst had mentioned "But all Vorcha will also die" then it's a bit easier to go "Eh... sorry Vorcha" because the player hasn't established that emotional connection with them.  I imagine any player that didn't like the Geth didn't have much issue with this decision either.

I would like to think that you're wrong about this, because genocide ought to be the ultimate sin regardless of which people are exterminated. The idea that an intelligent species could be completely and utterly exterminated by your actions and that you might go 'eh...' because you haven't really made friends with any of them is worrying. Your Shepard might, but my Shepard would nevah!

PS, I was being flip. I don't mean 'you' as in anyone in particular, and I'm not suggesting that anyone harbours genocidal thoughts. 

Modifié par Dorrieb, 09 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[buffyslayer12]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Do you not see the fundamental problem with starbaby holding an entire race hostage?
"You kill me, they get taken with me." Is essentially what it's saying. In any other story this would be the villain gloating in the hero's face that they have the upper hand.
But here, we're supposed to go along with this arrogant monster? It makes no sense.

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.  I see it as an unexpected consequence of building a superweapon that we didn't fully understand.  All the Catalyst describes is the result of said choice.

If anything is missing, it's an explanation as to why the Crucible's discharge cannot be made to avoid the Geth (or maybe it actually can?).

i think thats part of the disconnect that exist between some players and the developers. if for example the starchild was replaced with avina the citidels VI then it's easier to except that "this is what the crucible does" rather than your enemy ("i created the reapers"- godchild) saying something which the player has no reason to trust.

Modifié par buffyslayer12, 09 avril 2012 - 04:59 .

[James9749]

Bioware needs to see this video BEFORE they release the DLC. If they at least look at his explanation and consider something he's suggesting, I would be fine with the endings.

[clos]

GdawgTuk wrote...



it's 39 minutes long, but holy cow did it open my eyes to just...everything going on with the ending. It seriously explained why it's so much more than just, "it's sad, I don't like it." Not even close! This seriously says it all, and Bioware employees and fans alike should check this out. 

This video is freaking brilliant!

Man, why did Bioware screw up ME3 in such a way that expanded cut DLC will make it unfixable? How can you make a poo platter taste good? It's impossible!

[Allan Schumacher]

TreguardD wrote...

The Angry One is making the point better than I can. If that's the option; then my choice is not to fire the weapon.

That's fair, and I can definitely see the value in providing an option to refusing to do anything.  Some may say that you can do that, but no one wants to end on "Critical Mission Failure" pop up.

My take on it would have been to have the Reapers win, but with various degrees of failure based upon EMS.  A really low score is outright annihilation, but a better score is annihilation, but with Shepard and Co. encasing all they know in Liara's time capsule for the next cycle to find.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dorrieb wrote...

I would like to think that you're wrong about this, because genocide ought to be the ultimate sin regardless of which people are exterminated. The idea that an intelligent species could be completely and utterly exterminated by your actions and that you might go 'eh...' because you haven't really made friends with any of them is worrying. Your Shepard might, but my Shepard would nevah!

PS, I was being flip. I don't mean 'you' as in anyone in particular, and I'm not suggesting that anyone harbours genocidal thoughts. 

That's fair.  The only way I can really make that assessment is based upon my own beliefs.

It's easy for me to say that I'd have been just as affected, but I don't know if that actually would have been the case for me.  Like I said to the other fellow, if you believe that the selection of race wouldn't impact your decision, then that's the way you feel and kudos to you for being a better person than I

[Mr.House]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TreguardD wrote...

The Angry One is making the point better than I can. If that's the option; then my choice is not to fire the weapon.

That's fair, and I can definitely see the value in providing an option to refusing to do anything.  Some may say that you can do that, but no one wants to end on "Critical Mission Failure" pop up.

My take on it would have been to have the Reapers win, but with various degrees of failure based upon EMS.  A really low score is outright annihilation, but a better score is annihilation, but with Shepard and Co. encasing all they know in Liara's time capsule for the next cycle to find.

But see, why not have that option? Alot of Shepards like mine would never have fired the cruible after she found out what it was and after hearing the worst logic she has ever heard from the Reaper controller. My Speard would have refused and would watch her fleet fight. Even if they failed it would not have destroyed my Shepard, instead I'm railroaded into three horrible choices. Also if we did refuse, why must it be a failure? If we worked hard and made a very very very powerful fleet why could we not win? We killed many Reapers in ME3 convently(sp) or thinking outsidet he box) Why not have the "happy" ending in fact be part of the reject ending and it's the hardest to get. I just don't see why you guys did not have that option and have us accept something alot of us would never accept.

Modifié par Mr.House, 09 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[Anaki86]

Mr.House wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TreguardD wrote...

The Angry One is making the point better than I can. If that's the option; then my choice is not to fire the weapon.

That's fair, and I can definitely see the value in providing an option to refusing to do anything.  Some may say that you can do that, but no one wants to end on "Critical Mission Failure" pop up.

My take on it would have been to have the Reapers win, but with various degrees of failure based upon EMS.  A really low score is outright annihilation, but a better score is annihilation, but with Shepard and Co. encasing all they know in Liara's time capsule for the next cycle to find.

But see, why not have that option? Alot of Shepards like mine would never have fired the cruible after she found out what it was and after hearing the worst logic she has ever heard from the Reaper controller. My Speard would have refused and would watch her fleet fight. Even if they failed it would not have destroyed my Shepard, instead I'm railroaded into three horrible choices. Also if we did refuse, why must it be a failure? If we worked hard and made a very very very powerful fleet why could we not win? We killed many Reapers in ME3 convently(sp) or thinking outsidet he box) Why not have the "happy" ending in fact be part of the reject ending and it's the hardest to get. I just don't see why you guys did not have that option and have us accept something alot of us would never accept.

I agree that rejecting the Catalyst's choices should have been an option. I also agree that rejecting them results only in failure. To be able to reject the Catalyst's choices and still pull a win would have made the Crucible completely pointless and disregarded the fact that conventional means are a path to a slow death.

[CDHarrisUSF]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't see it as the Catalyst holding an entire race hostage.

I see it as BioWare holding the Geth and EDI hostage in order to make sure there isn't a clear "good" choice.

[Mr.House]

Anaki86 wrote...

I agree that rejecting the Catalyst's choices should have been an option. I also agree that rejecting them results only in failure. To be able to reject the Catalyst's choices and still pull a win would have made the Crucible completely pointless and disregarded the fact that conventional means are a path to a slow death.

The cruible became useless when we proved on Rannoch that with clever thinknig and tactics we could kill reapers conventional. ANd to make matters worse, all that stuff was throwen outt he window and the "cruible is needed!" rubbish was showed down our throats again, and not once could we bring up many parts where we proved the cruible is not really needed.

[jbauck]

Spartanburger wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
It's actually why I like the sacrifice of the Geth, because I do care about them.  It made me think about choosing destroy.

Personally, the Geth sacrifice seemed to come out of nowhere for me and seemed completely undeserving.

Let me put it in different words. Yes, the goal is to destroy all the synthetics and Destroy accomplishes that very well. My problem is that destroying what the Geth symbolize came as a slap to the face to me.

We (Shepard) witnessed (if peace is chosen or if you're a monster and saved the Geth over the Quarians) a race being born. Not physically, but mentally. You were there, talking with Legion while he made the Geth fully sentient individuals.

<snipped really great post>

The Crucible's premise - synthetics and organics are doomed to conflict with each others - really, really suffers because the synthetic/organic conflict we are most familiar with is the Quarian/Geth conflict.  Not only is it possible for us to make peace between these two races, but from ME1 to ME3, Tali grows from a racist who hates the Geth due to her fear and ignorance, to someone who knows better.

The Quarian/Geth conflict is used as a metaphor for racism in 3 games ... right up until the very ending of 3 when the Catalyst asserts that synthetics and organics can't coexist, and suddenly  ... it's not a metaphor for racism anymore and we can't tell the Catalyst he's wrong?  And that metaphorically racist premise is what the Catalyst uses as justification for this genocidal cycle, and for the reason Shepard is limited to the control/synthesis/destruction options.

How about - "we'll all stop being racist ... it worked for the Quarians and the Geth" as a solution to this problem?  On top of our personal stake in the outcome of the Geth (as excellently discussed in the post I snipped), there's a real narrative issue with that dropped metaphor, which is simply that Shepard is suddenly required to accept a premise that Shepard has had the opportunity to reject >and disprove< previously in the game.

That said, the "destroy" ending was still my pick.  Control and Synthesis both feel so morally wrong to me that I just can't do it - and the Geth were allies who signed on for this fight, and destroying the Reapers has always been the goal.  If the Catalyst had told me that the Asari or the Krogan - or even the Humans - were all going to die when I destroyed the Reapers, I would've done that to.

[Joccaren]

ForceXev wrote...

Genre -- I don't really think of Mass Effect as "techy" in the same way that Star Trek is.  Nobody in Mass Effect uses technobabble, that I can recall.  Maybe there's a lot of technobabble in the codex, I don't know -- I usually only read character stuff in there.  But in the game, Garrus just says "I'm in the middle of some calibrations," he doesn't put us to sleep by giving us the details.  So I personally didn't really need an explanation of the Crucible, and in fact I think the point was that nobody knew how it worked.

For me, Mass Effect went off the tracks in terms of genre because it was always firmly grounded in reality until the ending.  Mass Effect weapons may be technically "futuristic," but the they feel just like modern day weapons in the way they shoot and feel.  They go "bang, bang" not "pew, pew," and most of them seem to shoot bullets not lazer light beams.  Everything in the series is like this -- elevators run on rails, they don't appear to float on magical light (until the ending), artificial intelligences are stored in computers or in robotic machine-bodies (until the ending), and you interface with technology using computer terminals and keyboards not by sticking your hands into lightning or jumping into a pillar of light (until the ending).

Technobabble:

Spoiler

Element Zero (Atomic Number 0, Chemical Symbol Ez), also known as 'eezo', is a rare material that, when subjected to an electrical current, releases dark energy which can be manipulated into a mass effect field, raising or lowering the mass of all objects within that field. A positive current increases mass, a negative current decreases it. This 'mass effect' is used in countless ways, from generating artificial gravity to manufacturing high-strength construction materials. It is most prominently used to enable faster-than-light space travel. When humansdiscovered the Prothean ruins on Mars, they also discovered refined element zero that the Protheans had left behind. It enabled research into FTL ship drives before the Charon Relay was discovered.Eezo is generated when solid matter, such as a planet, is affected by the energy of a star going supernova. The material is common in the asteroid debris that orbits neutron stars and pulsars. These are dangerous places to mine, requiring extensive use of robotics, telepresence, and shielding to survive the intense radiation from the dead star. Only a few major corporations can afford the set-up costs required to work these primary sources. Some planets have small eezo deposits or coalesced around a larger deposit during their formation. While these secondary sources are safer to mine, the yield from the ore is not as large. There are rumours that the Nemean Abyss has particularly rich eezo deposits.Dust-form element zero is often released after engine accidents. It is used by many species to influence or strengthen the presence of biotics. If a child is exposed to dust-form element zero in utero, due to its mutageniceffects, there is a small chance they can develop eezo nodules throughout their nervous system that react to electrical stimuli from the brain. This allows them to use biotic abilities, but many exposures have no effect, or result in terminal cancer. There is some question about just how 'accidental' some of those initial exposures were, after the link between eezo and biotics was established.Element zero forms the basis of many advanced medicines throughout Citadel space. The biotic drug 'red sand' allegedly has element zero as its base — according to urban legend, it was created by criminal triads on Mars from the eezo samples recovered there. The Normandy's massive Tantalus drive core cost 120 billion credits because of the amount of element zero needed to power the stealth system.

Talk to Engineer Adams in ME1 and ask him about how the Stealth system and you'll get more technobabble.
Does it say 'Techeon drift into the Zeta particle emersion field' or some random crap like that? No. It doesn't need to. 'Jumping to FTL Blueshifts our emissions' conveys the reason perfectly fine, even though it uses relatively normal terms.

Narrative Coherence -- I would have liked to see the list of inconsistencies in the video too, but I know they are there.  It's a lot of little things that you could probably explain a way with sentences that start with "Well, maybe..."  Normally you can do with one or two of those "well, maybe" situations, but when you have five, six, seven... it gets to be too much "well, maybe"ing.

He posted all the questions a couple of pages back. But yeah, I'm ok with speculating a couple of things. When you force me to speculate about everything in the ending...

Modifié par Joccaren, 09 avril 2012 - 05:55 .

[Anaki86]

Mr.House wrote...

Anaki86 wrote...

I agree that rejecting the Catalyst's choices should have been an option. I also agree that rejecting them results only in failure. To be able to reject the Catalyst's choices and still pull a win would have made the Crucible completely pointless and disregarded the fact that conventional means are a path to a slow death.

The cruible became useless when we proved on Rannoch that with clever thinknig and tactics we could kill reapers conventional. ANd to make matters worse, all that stuff was throwen outt he window and the "cruible is needed!" rubbish was showed down our throats again, and not once could we bring up many parts where we proved the cruible is not really needed.

All three of the reapers that we can destroy in the game--on Tuchanka, Rannoch, and Earth--are destroyers. They are smaller than the dreadnaughts and it still took a lot of fire power to take them down. Taking on the entire reaper fleet would be next to impossible. The Crucible was always needed. 

[Taleroth]

Anaki86 wrote...

The Crucible was always needed. 

Needed... for what?

Here's the thing about the Crucible. Nobody has any clue what it does until the end. It could have been anything, including a boon to conventional warfare.

One of the more interesting ways the Crucible could have been used (and by "more interesting" I mean I came up with it and a few people have parroted it) is that it just nullifies the Mass Effect. Or that it weakens shields. It basically takes away from Reapers something that they need far more than everyone else does.

Their power is arbitrary. The crucible's power is arbitrary. The balance between the two is also therefore arbitrary. So yeah, if you wish to believe the crucible was necessary, that's cool. But that doesn't mean convential warfare was impossible. It could have been a component in such an event.

Modifié par Taleroth, 09 avril 2012 - 05:32 .