219 réponses à ce sujet

[TobiTobsen]

Vespervin wrote...

Ah yes, "winning". We have dismissed that claim.

Charlie Sheen... I mean Charlie Shepard, the total freaking rockstar from the Prothean ruins on Mars, would've sucker punched the god child while screaming "I'M BI-WINNING! WIN HERE, WIN THERE, WIN WIN EVERYWHERE", ending the circle and all the Reapers right there and then he would've left to bang seven gram rocks.

Because he was on a quest: absolute victory! Right every single wrong!

True story.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 16 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Ashilana]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

Vespervin wrote...

Ah yes, "winning". We have dismissed that claim.

That made me laugh!

I mean why should I replay the game now that I know everything I do is pointless?  I mean would anyone play Sonic the Hedgehog if there was no way to defeat Eggman at the end?

Perhaps Mass Effect 3 will be looked at in the future as an attempt at art...an example of what the limitations are for an artform that has the audience participate.  If you tell the audience they are struggling to win, the designer of the game cannot take away that possibility at the last moment without ruining the replayability of the entire franchise.

[Darthnemesis2]

#winning shepard is always winning

[Jeremy Winston]

I can only speak for myself, but for me, it's a waste of time, money, and emotional energy to have a no-win scenario.

Had I known up front, I would have skipped it. I believe there is a common expectation that no game is ever a no-win scenario. Why play, otherwise? I can read a book if I want to feel the angst of a hero with no hope.

[fchopin]

DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...

"there needs to be a way to win in a video game" sums everything up nicely.

Anyone else agree?

You win by selecting the destroy option imo.

[amp1236]

Bioware in their best Charlie Sheen impression:

WINNING!!!!!!!

[Naugi]

I dont care if I dont win as long as I understand WTF happened at the end and why. This wasnt the case in ME3.

Had no clue what the hell had happened to the galaxy, my companions or earth. Take back earth, yeah, ok, soon as I either a) wake up from the indoctrination fight thats going on purely in my head meaning the game ends with nothing actually having happened and the glorious Shepard lying on the floor in London having visions or figure out what the hell happened to my ground crew, the Normandy crew and every fleet in the galaxy that followed me to Earth after the Mass Relays went kaboom.

Too much WTF and not enough win or lose.

Modifié par Naugi, 16 avril 2012 - 04:17 .

[DiebytheSword]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

There's never been an indication that it's possible to beat the reapers conventionally.

Not true.  Vigil states that Sovereign can't withstand the combined might of the galaxies navies.  Conventional victory is possible, just highly improbable due to the number or Reaper dreadnaughts involved.

[TheBlackBaron]

DiebytheSword wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

There's never been an indication that it's possible to beat the reapers conventionally.

Not true.  Vigil states that Sovereign can't withstand the combined might of the galaxies navies.  Conventional victory is possible, just highly improbable due to the number or Reaper dreadnaughts involved.

-One- Reaper cannot withstand the combined might of the galaxies' navies. 

One. 

We must have different definitons of "conventional victory", because while we may have enough fleets to defeat one Reaper, there's never any indication we have enough fleets to defeat all the Reapers - or even have the means of reaching the total number necessary. 

[Rjames112]

I really do feel like the ending lacked that "Hooray for victory!" feel to it. As for the theme of sacrifice, Bioware had that in Dragon Age: Origins as an option and even IF you took that option you still felt like you had achieved a victory.

I suppose it's artistic license to represent a Pyrrhic victory but I think the lack of some knowledge of the implications of the endings might fuel the feeling there was no denouement.

[Quietness]

People really need to learn what conventional is. 

Is the fleet that Shepard can potentially put together conventional? No not even a little... The fleet is unconventional.
Just because Bioware decided to neuter the fleets to make it seem impossible for the fleets to win without the stupid plot device does not make it ok.

Modifié par Quietness, 16 avril 2012 - 04:30 .

[TobiTobsen]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

There's never been an indication that it's possible to beat the reapers conventionally.

Not true.  Vigil states that Sovereign can't withstand the combined might of the galaxies navies.  Conventional victory is possible, just highly improbable due to the number or Reaper dreadnaughts involved.

-One- Reaper cannot withstand the combined might of the galaxies' navies. 

One. 

We must have different definitons of "conventional victory", because while we may have enough fleets to defeat one Reaper, there's never any indication we have enough fleets to defeat all the Reapers - or even have the means of reaching the total number necessary. 

You need four dreadnoughts with "normal" weapons to bring down a Reaper captial ship, like Harbinger and Sovereign. That's what the codex says.

It also states that Thanix cannons are way more effectiv. I still don't understand why the species of the galaxy seem to have forgotten about them.

[Naugi]

Loads of the fleet ships that come through the mass relay with you to earth have been upgraded with Thanix cannons. They were pretty unique in ME2 and it was a big thing when the Normandy got one, but any respectable Reaper fighting force has Thanix cannons in ME3, there are many references to them throughout the game.

[The Night Mammoth]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...


I couldn't think of another word to use. Basically, it seems the developers went out of their way to be cruel, as if the destruction of the Mass Relays and the billions already dead at the Reaper's hands wasn't a high enough price to pay already, so they lopped on you killing the Geth and EDI for little reason. 

That really isn't a price that Shepard pays. He couldn't help the Reapers killing billions. That's out of his hands. But if they make some of it IN his hands, that makes the choice a whole lot harder.

I suppose not, but it is a price that's paid to defeat the Reapers, directly by the actions of Shepard or not. If ever Shepard should have had to pay a price, it would be himself, providing he wins something visibly positive. His sacrifice is forced, and besides the obvious defeat of the Reapers if you choose Destroy, there's little else that's positive, to me at least. 

Destruction of the Mass Relays doesn't exactly leave civilization in a favourable position. Unknowable numbers of people are going to die, and galactic society is effectively dead for the forseeable future. Shepard basically sacrificed everything and won nothing visibly positive. 

How so? I really wish I knew where that Patrick Weekes interview was, but he said that A. the Relays did not explode cataclysmically

I know that now, whereas before it always seemed like it could swing either way. No problems in this respect, in hindsight it was pretty obvious what the writer's intentions were. 

and B. it's possible to travel between solar systems and whatnot with relatively little difficutly.

They may seem like a retcon, but if you think about it it doesn't make sense for the Catalyst to have a solution that completely eradicates systems, and rather makes a lot more sense for it to have one that deactivates the relays.

This is where I get annoyed. I can accept the Relays not going supenova, that would be above and beyond stupid, but just saying it's possible for travel to exist and that wouldn't be difficult doesn't cut it considering the huge number of problems the game puts in place. Sure, in theory they could travel around, but it'd still take years. I personally don't care for that situation. Galactic society would be over, the Mass Effect universe I tried to save would be over. 

Other than beating the Reapers in a straight up fight, sure. It seems that the devs went a little overboard with the theme of sacrifice. 

That's completely impossible. If you played ME1, you'd know that that's completely impossible, considering that the human and turian (and asari, I believe) couldn't even defeat Sovereign (they only won because controlling Saren brought down Sovereign's shields) There's never been an indication that it's possible to beat the reapers conventionally.

This could turn into quite a debate, so I'll keep it brief. 

First, on the point you bring up, Sovereign wasn't alone. He had a huge fleet of Geth ships that caught the Citadel largely by surprise. Whilst his minions took care of the Ascencion and the Turians, the Reaper slipped past. There's a reason it needed the Geth, and Saren to inflitrate, it couldn't do it alone, and was eventually defeated by the Alliance, and the Alliance fleet alone. 

I said I'll be brief, but it comes down to what you show instead of what you say. Hackett never fails to bring up the impossibility of a conventional victory, but the devs didn't do a good job of showing that. Readiness tells you the Reapers are being beaten back, Palaven is holding out, you run around taking out destroyers with relatively little difficulty, and the entire trilogy makes a point of telling you that this cycle is special, that the Reapers aren't doing things on their terms anymore. I see no reason why a massive combined fleet couldn't win providing your EMS is as high as possible. Else War Assets as a game mechanic feels largely arbitrary. 

The writers also have a habit of pitting Shepard against impossible odds a lot, having characters tell you the task is impossible to complete, but then ultimately allowing you to beat these odds, mostly because unity and diversity trump everything, apparently. ME2 epitomises this. Coming back from the dead was impossible, uniting a team as diverse as you eventually gather was impossible, making it through the Omega 4 Relay and back was impossible, and defeating the Collectors without losses was impossible. Yet, the results can speak for themselves. Let's not get started on how many impossible feats Shepard achieves in ME3 itself.

Don't build up a character's heroism to ridiculous levels only to bring it back to to realistic levels for no reason. If there were ever prevaling themes and aspects in Mass Effect, one of them would definitely be victory is possible if you work hard enough. Your efforts translate to success or failure, and more specifically, the extent of your succes or failure. Another would be overcoming impossible odds through unity, diversity making the union stronger. Both are things missing from the finale. There are no varying degrees of success or failure, no matter what you achieve largely the same outcome. Diversity is bad and unity is not possible. It's grating. 

That was brief. 

I wonder if that's actually applicable, considering the amount of death and sacrifice paid even before the fleets attack Earth. 

Again, that isn't the same as Shepard having to make a hard choice.

Gotta go, but I look forward to your response.

No, but it's related to the necessity of making the choice and its price so high. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 16 avril 2012 - 05:30 .

[Jeremy Winston]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

The writers also have a habit of pitting Shepard against impossible odds a lot, having characters tell you the task is impossible to complete, but then ultiamtely allowing you to beat these odds, mostly because unity and diversity trump everything, apparently. ME2 epitomises this. Coming back from the dead was impossible, uniting a team as diverse as you gather was impossible, making it through the Omega 4 Relay and back was impossible, and defeating the Collectors without losses was impossible. Yet, the results can speak for themselves. Let's not get started on how many impossible feats Shepard achieves in ME3 itself.

Don't build up a character's heroism to ridiculous levels only to bring it back to to realistic levels for no reason.

This.  I like this.

[WeAreLegionWTF]

I personally dont mind works of fiction that end on a sour note, or in some kind of stalemate. I just doing like when its delivered half-ass, and with the continuity of a 5 year old.

[Darth Evil]

DevilBeast wrote...

Hmm.. You father has a point, and in most videogames it should be like that, but there are some where it doesn´t have to be "kill the bad guy(s), you won". F.ex: In Deus Ex there really isn´t a "winning" feeling to it, but it´s still a great game loved by many people, here 12 years after it was released.

Very true, even Bioware loves the game

[DoctorCrowtgamer]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...


It doesn't invalidate that option, but to me, that price is a little bit sadistic. 

Let's not use words erroneously. You're saying that Shepard (or maybe the developers) derived sexual pleasure from the death of the Geth?

I couldn't think of another word to use. Basically, it seems the developers went out of their way to be cruel, as if the destruction of the Mass Relays and the billions already dead at the Reaper's hands wasn't a high enough price to pay already, so they lopped on you killing the Geth and EDI for little reason. 

Saving this cycle, by stopping the Reapers, was Shepard's ultimate goal in my book. This cycle is basically doomed.

How so? You stop the Reapers in two out of three options.

Destruction of the Mass Relays doesn't exactly leave civilization in a favourable position. Unknowable numbers of people are going to die, and galactic society is effectively dead for the forseeable future. Shepard basically sacrificed everything and won nothing visibly positive. 

As above, my Shepard's goal involves saving this cycle. Maybe there's some parallels with Paragon/Renegade. 

The cost is high, maybe too high. 

Nope, no parallels. I'm a paragon to the core.

The point is, you save this cycle by defeating the Reapers. It may have a high cost, but there's no other way. That's the only way to save this cycle.

Other than beating the Reapers in a straight up fight, sure. It seems that the devs went a little overboard with the theme of sacrifice. 

You say the cost is high. That's personal feeling. You know some religions don't really believe in killing and war and stuff. They aren't pacifists by any means, but the price of war--blood on their hands--is too high for them. But they don't say war is a horrible horrible thing and we can't have it and it's better to roll over while X takes over the world--they just don't join the army.

I think if one isn't willing to pay the price for peace (NOTE: pay the price for peace, not flood the world in a sea of blood) then one oughtn't be in the army.

I wonder if that's actually applicable, considering the amount of death and sacrifice paid even before the fleets attack Earth. 

Yeah well said.  I don't feel like the galaxy is better off because of what Shepard did.  I am pretty sure nothing would have changed if Shepard had been killed in the attack on earth so what is the point of playing?

[MasterDracoStoc]

My character can lose in a game. He/she can die, maybe not accomplish everything he/she set out to do. It doesn't matter if my character wins, so long as at the end of the game I, as the player, won. Halo: Reach was perfect in this. You knew that Reach would fall, you weren't going to live, but the final scenes sent you out with a bang. That's what the ending was truly lacking, Shepard went down without a fight, and that is the true failure of the ending.

[Eterna]

We did win, it just came at a great cost.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

We did win, it just came at a great cost.

Who's we? Speak for yourself. 

[bpzrn]

cardinalally wrote...

I did miss that 'I win' feeling at the end of the game. It even isn't so much about winning as getting that feeling of accomplishing something. At the end I just felt like everything i did was for nothing and for that feeling I have real life.

Overcome by disappointment feeling is what I experienced,
not because of a "sad" ending because of a NON-Coherent ending
that made no sense, they took the best game I had played and made it one of the
worst that I cant / wont play again.

Modifié par bpzrn, 16 avril 2012 - 05:26 .