481 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Mr.House wrote...

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.

Unfortunately I am not privy to what went in deciding what are acceptable responses to the Catalyst, so I can't really make any comment there.


As for why I'd make it the failure case, probably because the idea that the Reapers can be defeated conventionally seems like a cop out answer itself.  The Crucible is already a plot device, and then deciding at the end that the crucible is completely irrelevant and you could actually win without the superweapon lends me to wonder why the Protheans or some other cycle weren't able to win.

The few times we defeated the Reapers, it seemed like it took pretty extreme circumstances to do so.  I think someone pointed out that the codex indicates that it takes 4 dreadnoughts to take out a Reaper dreadnought without losing any ships.  I always had the impression that the Reapers were a very, very powerful force.

[Leafs43]

I think you need to look at plot build up and plot twists go in a saga.


In a saga or series, you don't pull a plot twist at the end when you build up for an ultimate resolution to the central conflict.

The trilogy rules are that plot twists are good for the first 2 installments and only up to 80% of the third. After that, you simply don't do plot twists. You throw the cards down on the table and play out the story.

Bioware had 90 hours to introduce the star child, or even foreshadow him, and they didn't (brief snarky banter only done in passing does not count as foreshadowing). So you simply don't add him into the game with 5 minutes to go.

Modifié par Leafs43, 09 avril 2012 - 05:40 .

[Ender99]

I've already watched this, but it's still amazing.

[Allan Schumacher]

Taleroth wrote...

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.

Although this is more just a critique of the writing.  In reality, due to the nature of the Crucible, the writers could have come up with pretty much anything they wanted.

[CronoDragoon]

For what it's worth, the idea of the Crucible - that is was something millions of years in the making, that each cycle previously wiped out had still contributed to it and therefore to the Reapers' demise - was actually a pretty beautiful idea. Went well with Javik's comment about his existence being all the Protheans had left...and that his existence was vengeance personified.

[TreguardD]

Which brings up the point: Maybe we still don't. Maybe it was just a battle in the center of the mind. Though I believe it to be clear that wasn't the intent, it still might be the way out.

::peer:: 1 Am. Right. Sleep time.

[TJX2045]

Caz Tirin wrote...

Artistic Integtriy > Narrative Cohesion


clearly.... /facepalm

[clos]

I just watched his follow up video. Brilliant as well.

Modifié par clos, 09 avril 2012 - 06:00 .

[SharlenaSharlena]

Wowserz Allan your posting like crazy!!! Can't sleep huh lolz.

[Allan Schumacher]

SharlenaSharlena wrote...

Wowserz Allan your posting like crazy!!! Can't sleep huh lolz.

I'll be crashing earlier tonight than I did last night hehe.  Just winding down the evening (midnight here)

[Joccaren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The Crucible is already a plot device, and then deciding at the end that the crucible is completely irrelevant and you could actually win without the superweapon lends me to wonder why the Protheans or some other cycle weren't able to win.

Moreso to me it would provide better opportunities. In the Crucible, you sacrifice something big every time. It is a MASSIVE cost. Shepard dies, and the relays, possibly the Citadel and if Shepard lives, the Geth die.
Conventional would provide another option. If you didn't do things right - you can't win. You lose, Liara's box gets found. If you did everything correct, got every fleet to work together, have the strongest force the galaxy has ever seen, 7.8K EMS - then you win. You sacrifice a lot of lives, but everyone makes the sacrifice. Everyone is a hero. As is, either the Geth or Shepard make the sacrifice, and even then it leads to the destruction of the galactic transportation and communications network.

As for why the Protheans couldn't do it: The same reason we never could without the Mass Relays. We would never have gotten to the Citadel, let alone Palaven, Thessia, Tuchanka or anywhere else. Add to that that the council is dead and nobody has any clue what is going on - that is why the Protheans, the Inusannon and all other cycles couldn't win. We are the first cycle to have not fallen to the Citadel Relay. The Reapers primary advantage is gone. We don't have the Relay network shut down. We still have our government. We can co-ordinate, and we can strike back.

The few times we defeated the Reapers, it seemed like it took pretty extreme circumstances to do so.  I think someone pointed out that the codex indicates that it takes 4 dreadnoughts to take out a Reaper dreadnought without losing any ships.  I always had the impression that the Reapers were a very, very powerful force.

4 Dreadnoughts without Thanix guns. Thanix guns are more effective.

And whilst the Reapers have always been a powerful force, a lot of their power came from surprise. Sovereign's strength was a surprise to everyone, and thousands died for it.
The Reaper's arrival was a surprise to every other cycle, and trillions died for it.
When we attack the Sol system to retake Earth, WE are the surprise. We are a fleet that, by all accounts, should take a week to pass through the Relay - but space magic lets us get through faster. We are the largest collaboration of ships in history - over 100,000 craft fighting the Reapers. It shows in the Sword fight - were you successful. We dodge Reaper beams and take down a Capital ship. Sure, we lose 1 dreadnought doing so, but that Reaper is dead. We take down their fighter forces, and whilst they have surperior firepower and strength, we have superior numbers. The Reapers wish their numbers could darken the skies of as many worlds as ours can, and that is why a lot of us feel victory is possible. Never before have the Reapers actually had to fight an entire galaxy. Now they do, and we are using their own technology against them [Thanix guns].

[Ozai75]

@Allan. True, they are but in the beginning of the fit we see a Sovereign class Reaper taken out by the fleet with conventional weapons (it destroys a dreadnaught before falling, but still). Number mean a great deal. A real world example. The Sherman tank was a POS compared to the Panther II and Tiger Tanks that the Germans deployed, yet with better tactics and more numbers the Americans were able to routine defeat the technologically superior German tanks. I know the gulf in tech is far greater, but why couldn't this happen in ME3?

[tenojitsu]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

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.

Although this is more just a critique of the writing.  In reality, due to the nature of the Crucible, the writers could have come up with pretty much anything they wanted.

This is a lot of text, but you might be interested in my interpretation of the ending. When I really started thinking about all of this, it made me see ending with a new level of respect.

http://social.biowar...3176/1#11188630

[UFGSpot]

Taleroth wrote...

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.

One of my major issues with the concept of how the Catalyst was pulled off (or not) is this. I can buy that there was a superweapon devoloped over multiple cycles. It's actually kind of a neat concept. Each falling generation leaves a little more for the next, hoping to one day end the cycles. I can even buy it interfacing with the Citadel. Like the Citadel was the only source of power big enough to run the thing, whatever it did.

But where it falls of the wagon for me is....how it "creates new possibilies" for the star child. It implies a certain amount of cohesion between the 2 devices. It screams to me that if the previous races knew what the star child was, and how he controlled the reapers...why not just blow up the citadel and end it there? Whatever race that first started the concept of the Crucible however many cycles ago...how did they know what the nature of the Catalyst was? How did they manage to build a device which interfaced with "him" directly? Did the Catalyst himself "leak" the plans for the Crucible as a test (maybe the name is a clue), on the idea that whichever cycle managed to either soley construct it, or pull everyone together in order to make it would at that point be worthy of a reprieve?

That's the thing. The way we think the crucible works is the catalyst enables it to function, but when it's used it's actually the opposite. The crucible enables the catalyst.

Modifié par UFGSpot, 09 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[Allan Schumacher]

4 Dreadnoughts without Thanix guns. Thanix guns are more effective.

How much more effective are they? According to the codex they seem to rival the firepower of a cruiser, but are much smaller and can be equipped on frigates and fighters (which is useful). Is it really more powerful than weapons that exist on dreadnoughts?

And whilst the Reapers have always been a powerful force, a lot of their power came from surprise. Sovereign's strength was a surprise to everyone, and thousands died for it.

Sovereign was a surprise, but at the same time I vaguely recall him just going "oh look, a ship in my way. Whatever" and pretty much not being concerned about anything the fleet had to offer.

Maybe I just don't fully appreciate how much bigger our fleet is compared to the reaper fleet (I did love seeing the fleet come in)?

[Mr.House]

I just feel that if the crucible was so important, they should have showed us, instead they kept on showing us, while taking loses fighting the Reapers without it was possible. I just don't feel the cruible was really needed because it lacked proper build up, why we really needed and why not focus on more ships with Thanix canons ect. I do find the Crucible arc to be the weakest link in the story of ME3 as it just lacked alot of stuff it needed, plus Starchild did not really help. It could have been good but it just felt like the writers didn't really care about the Crucible and focused on the other parts of the story then at the last minute won't wo crap we have done nothing with the crucible.

Again, this is my opinino of the role of the cruibile in the main story. It's the only part in the main story that just makes me go what? Because I lvoed the other parts. I lvoed uniting the Galaxy, I loved curing the Genophage and getting the krogans and turians, I lvoed getting the batarians to work with the Alliance, I loved shutting down Cerberus and I lvoed ending the Geth/Quarian war with peace. Everything was so good except for the Cruible, the final battle and Starchild.

Modifié par Mr.House, 09 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[Ozai75]

Aw man Allan, check what I said regarding allies vs Germany and tanks in relation to us vs reapers

[ArchLord James]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unfortunately I am not privy to what went in deciding what are acceptable responses to the Catalyst, so I can't really make any comment there.


As for why I'd make it the failure case, probably because the idea that the Reapers can be defeated conventionally seems like a cop out answer itself.  The Crucible is already a plot device, and then deciding at the end that the crucible is completely irrelevant and you could actually win without the superweapon lends me to wonder why the Protheans or some other cycle weren't able to win.

The few times we defeated the Reapers, it seemed like it took pretty extreme circumstances to do so.  I think someone pointed out that the codex indicates that it takes 4 dreadnoughts to take out a Reaper dreadnought without losing any ships.  I always had the impression that the Reapers were a very, very powerful force.

It wouldn't make the crucible irrelevant, it is still there as an option, and it is where we meet the leader of the reapers and find out the motivations behind their cycle of harvesting. However, we should be able to reject because the catalyst is asking us to commit monstrous actions, and trust that the consequences will be good? Why would shepard believe the reapers in the first place?? Aren't they the ones trying to preserve organic life by putting it into huge machines? Oh and were gonna now choose synthesis for the new solution?

As for why the "Protheans or some other cycle weren't able to win" I remember a conversation with Javik where he opens up a little bit and says he actually admires the amount of cooperation shepard has managed to bring to the galaxy in this cycle. Javik makes it clear that the reason it was such a war of attrition is that the galaxy under the prothean empire was not united at all and Javik thinks that was the main reason they lost. So that would be the reason why shepards cycle is the first to win conventionally, because shepard will be the first one to literally unite all the galaxy's organics, and even synthetics into one huge force to confront the reapers. They underestimated organic's ability to put aside their differences and work together. Also this cycle still had the relays thanks to the events of ME 1. Disabling the relays is a big part of the reaper plan to isolate and prevent unity, and they didn't do it this cycle. Finally, if a thresher maw can take down a destroyer, and 4 dreadnoughts a large reaper, why not?

[BarrelDrago]

Well if the IT is correct, the purspuse of the crusifal can be change, who know it could be a atena that could project a organic being into the reaper database, where you could blow it from the inside?

[Taleroth]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I've seen this said before.

Here's how I feel about it. Drastic consequences are only viable for choices. Forcing consequences for things that were also forced on the player is a bad thing.

This is how it is with DMing. The DM is not allowed to use as ammunition against the player things the DM forced them to do in the first place. That's just being a jerk.

Consequences should kind of teach. But the player forced into an action has nothing to learn. He can't think "I shouldn't have done that." He may have never wanted to do it in the first place. What he learns is "I never want to play with this DM again."

I kind of get that they just wanted to make Destroy inferior to Control and Synthesis. So they tack on "oh yeah, it kills synthetics too, why not." But the last minute is not the time to be dropping this in everyone's laps. They were doing it to destroy fthe Reapers from the very beginning and get told, at the last minute, that the entire plan has this major downside as a consequence of things the player was forced into. So why not do these other two things that TIM and Saren wanted instead.

And if the player uses the moment of confusion to think "wait, what?" he might come to conclude that it's nicely coincident that this consequence is in-line with the awkward anti-synthetic agenda of the starkid. So we're left with three options that all fulfill the bad guy's plans in varying degrees.

Modifié par Taleroth, 09 avril 2012 - 06:47 .

[Joccaren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How much more effective are they? According to the codex they seem to rival the firepower of a cruiser, but are much smaller and can be equipped on frigates and fighters (which is useful). Is it really more powerful than weapons that exist on dreadnoughts?

I gather Thanix guns somehow scale with size like conventional weapons. The only Volus Dreadnought - the Kwunu - is armed to the Teeth with Thanix guns. Its main gun is Thanix, as are all its broadside weapons. A Turian general was greatly impressed with it and said it could vapourise a planet 3 times over. I don't think you'd replace an extremely powerful gun with a weaker varient - so I can only gather a dreadnought version of the Thanix is more powerful than a cruiser version.

Sovereign was a surprise, but at the same time I vaguely recall him just going "oh look, a ship in my way. Whatever" and pretty much not being concerned about anything the fleet had to offer.

Yeah, don't get me wrong - the Reaper threat Sovereign presented was just incredible. I was expecting far fewer Reapers, but all as strong as Sovereign. Nothing in ME3 is as strong as Sovereign sadly - He had a beam per tentacle, could take the fire of 3 fleets without his shields dropping, and as you said was able to ram through a dreadnought/cruiser/W.E without so much as a second thought. I suppose it could be explained away by advancements in technology, but Sovereign was immensly powerful. Surprise was one of his greatest weapons, but it was by no means his only.

Maybe I just don't fully appreciate how much bigger our fleet is compared to the reaper fleet (I did love seeing the fleet come in)?

Reaper fleet at max [Going with Leviathin of Dis being from the first cycle, 1 billion years ago] is about 20,000 combat ships. Of these, the majority are 170m Destroyers.
If you assemble your fleet correctly, you obtain:
Quarian fleet. Over 50K ships.
Geth Fleet. Unkown numbers, larger than Quarian fleet. Not held by treaty of Firaxen - illegal numbers of dreadnoughts. Estimate 60K
Turian Fleet. Heavily damaged, but was comparible to the Quarian fleet overall - maybe 10K less - pre Reaper conflict. Estimated 20K ships left.
Asari fleet. Unkown numbers. Weaker than Turian fleet. Estimate 10K-15K ships
Salarian Fleet. Unkown numbers. Estimate 2K ships.
Assorted other species fleets [Terminus, Volus, Batarian - ect.]. Unkown numbers. Estimate 8K

Overall numbers: Estimated 155K ships
I was't kidding when I said a week to jump in.

[JDMiller5150]

So true. At one point, it seemed like I was only working at my job, so that I could throw money at BIOWARE for more DLC. Now, I'm never buying their product again.

[Anaki86]

Taleroth wrote...

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.

Oh absolutely! I completely agree that the Crucible could have used, not just in a different way, but in a way that could have made a conventional victory possible. I was simply pointing out that the conventional means alone would not be enough; to turn down the Catalyst's options would have had resulted in failure. Shepard and co. needed something to weaken the reapers and make conventional warefare possible. Without it the Reapers would win hands down. 

[ArchLord James]

Taleroth wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I've seen this said before.

Here's how I feel about it. Drastic consequences are only viable for choices. Forcing consequences for things that were also forced on the player is a bad thing.

This is how it is with DMing. The DM is not allowed to use as ammunition against the player things the DM forced them to do in the first place. That's just being a jerk.

Consequences should kind of teach. But the player forced into an action has nothing to learn. He can't think "I shouldn't have done that." He may have never wanted to do it in the first place. What he learns is "I never want to play with this DM again."

Well said man, well said! The main problem with the end of ME3 is that Shepard and the player are ultimately forced to agree with the genocidal monsters the reapers and choose one of THEIR solution. As soon as the catalyst said to me "I created the reapers" everything that came out of his mouth after that was meaningless to me. The reapers liquified babies and turned mothers into husks/banshees/brutes scions all in the name of a logic I dont believe or agree with. But I had no choice and was forced to agree with the reaper logic and implement their solution.

Modifié par ArchLord James, 09 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[mcneil_1]

Once again another great video