The Night Mammoth wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
We did win, it just came at a great cost.
Who's we? Speak for yourself.
Modifié par ed87, 16 avril 2012 - 05:44 .
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.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
The Night Mammoth wrote...
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.
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.
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.
No, but it's related to the necessity of making the choice and its price so high.
DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...
[SNIP!]
I am pretty sure that whole post was a joke and you don't need to refute it. My Dad isa complex man. He is the only member of my family who plays as femshepard but he calls Jane Austin books and films "MFD",MFD stands for Mildless Female Dribble. He has never behavles in a sexist way towards any woman and in 26 years he and my mom have only had one fight that I have heard. As I said he is complex.
DoctorCrowtgamer wrote...
We can go on about video games as art and if Bioware lied and all this other stuff but I think my dad said it best when talking about this the other day when he said..."there has to be a way to win in a video game".
No matter what you do in Mass Effect you end up losing in some form or another and video games at their most basic are things people play to have fun and win with. A video game that gives you no way to win is pretty pointless in the end. I mean it's not like a movie or a book where you are watching someone else do all the work,you are doing the work and the reason you keep playing is to beat the game.
I think
"there needs to be a way to win in a video game" sums everything up nicely.
Anyone else agree?
Modifié par someone else, 16 avril 2012 - 08:04 .
Modifié par someone else, 16 avril 2012 - 08:19 .
Alibenbaba wrote...
You can lose and still win.
Retour en haut