10 réponses à ce sujet

[miracleofsound]

The EMS system is confusing me on both moral and practical levels.

The final choice in the game is presented as a moral choice: What do you believe is the best way forward for organic life?

However, due to a higher EMS unlocking certain options, it seems the game wants to tell you that certain choices are 'better' or 'more rewarding' than others. Why else would you spend all that time building assets? Gamers are trained into an 'effort = reward' mentality - why suddenly rip that away at the last second?

The most confusing part is that the 'worst', or 'least rewarding ending' (destroy & commit genocide) suddenly becomes the 'most rewarding' or 'best' ending when it passes an arbitrary number - (one which I can't get without playing a multiplayer mode, and I despise multiplayer gaming? So after all my grinding on planets I STILL can't get the 'best' ending???) 

How exactly does 'more ships against the Reapers' result in 'Shepard survives the red explosion after stupidly walking into it?'

I just... cannot fathom how this makes any sense. I love Mass Effect more than any other game ever but this just seems to contradict every idea and mechanic the entire series stood for. I want to love this ending. Someone help me to. 

Modifié par miracleofsound, 20 avril 2012 - 11:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Based on the differences that can occur with the varying EMS thresholds, it seems that the EMS is more reflective of the ability to engineer and protect the crucible as opposed to directly attack the Reapers.

Note that I didn't fully realize that while playing through the first time either.


I don't feel that any of the choices are necessarily better than the others, just that they may require a better constructed Crucible in order to happen. I picked the Destroy ending even without knowing that Shepard survives, and I don't think that his survival necessarily makes it the best ending either.

[Allan Schumacher]

Velocithon wrote...

But the problem is how does having a higher EMS, which allows for better construction of the Crucible, somehow allow Shepard to survive in the end? The same explosion happens every time, it isn't like in the "best" ending no explosion happens where you could draw the conclusion that Shepard lives because of this.

There is a conversation (I think with Hackett but it's been a while now so it might be with someone else) discussing concerns about how we aren't even sure if the beam will only attack the reapers.  So the idea that the crucible might target more than just the reapers is present.

On top of that, if you look at the lower EMS destroy endings, you'll get some where the buildings are destroyed (but humanity survives... they don't cheer though), as well as one where the soldiers on the battlefield are literally vaporized.  So the differences in the EMS will lead to a pulse that has very different effects on people, buildings, etc..  Presumably with a much higher EMS, Shepard is spared because the pulse doesn't affect him as strongly as he would otherwise.

[Allan Schumacher]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Which raises the question: how in the hell does EMS have that effect on the Crucible? I get it from a gamey-wamey standpoint, but it (along with a lot of the ending) makes absolutely no logical sense.

If you look at your war assets, a lot of them discuss teams that research and build the crucible.


As for the war assets, I was expecting it to be more about the pew pew at the end too, but that isn't the case unfortunately.  Though, it isn't technically illogical because the military strength of the fleet helps protect the crucible during both construction and during deployment.  Whether or not it was what people expected is a different question (and based on the forums, and even my own experiences, it's not really expected).

Actually when it boils down to it, there are only meaningless numbers. 

You never once see any of your assets participating in any way.

I never said otherwise.  But you DO see the effects the Crucible has change, which is what I said.  This effect is directly related to the EMS value.

[Allan Schumacher]

Cucobr wrote...

you can say it

but

you will have to assume that Indoctrination Theory is true to make sense.

otherwise, Ships fighting in Space changes the power of Catalyst?


> ?????????? <<<<<<<<<

No.  Ships helping build and protect the Crucible changes the power of the Crucible.

2) Higher EMS = weaker Reaper forces = less energy output needed from Crucible to destroy the remainder.
If the blast from the Crucible doesn't need to be as strong, there will
be less collateral damage - no vaporized soldiers, no carbonized
planet, and no dead Shep.

Interesting and I hadn't thought about it that way.  The only thing that causes me to resist it more than the 1st alternative is that the idea that the Crucible discharges less energy with higher EMS would mean that the Crucible must have some way of knowing what level of intensity it needs to fire at based upon surviving Reapers.  Which I suppose isn't too far fetched if the Catalyst mechanism as the Reaper controller could allow it.

I still find myself prefering the first one I think.

[Allan Schumacher]

But you might not have any of those Crucible war assets and still have the required EMS for Earth to be perfectly fine. You might not have any of the protective fleet assets and still have the required EMS for Earth to be perfectly fine.

You could, in theory, have your entire war score composed of the absolute minimum required assets for doing only the mandatory missions with the rest made up of a super duper N7 team from multiplayer.

That is where the abstraction falls apart. Basing it on a number value is an abstraction (just like basing the Geth-Quarian peace opportunity on a number value is), but within a video game I come to expect it on some level.  Doing a gradiant, probabilistic shift becomes a lot more complicated to test, and a lot less predictable for gamers, which is arguably limiting the benefit for making a more complicated system.

Assuming that the assessment of EMS is what I described, do you have any idea on how to represent it without an abstraction down to numbers?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 avril 2012 - 03:06 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Cucobr wrote...

OK.

Can you please show me the moment IN GAME when the Crucible was damaged for our lack of EMS?

It's not.

My deduction for it comes from a rationalization of how the military assets can still logically contribute to the effectiveness of the Crucible.  Part of that deduction comes from the fact that the Crucible can be destroyed while you're on it (i.e. the Reapers recognize it's a threat and are in fact targeting it), on top of the realization that Hackett orders Sword Fleet to protect the Crucible at all costs when it's being brought in.


If you want me to say that it's not represented explicitly in game, then I guess you win.  It's not represented.  I already stated that it's not represented very well in the game earlier in this thread..  If you choose to believe that it's completely illogical and makes no sense for military assets to have an effect on the Crucible's capabilities at end game, then that's the way it is for you.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Jog0907 wrote...

In regards to the first point, (reapers destroying the crucible while shep talks with the catalyst) you do know that by the time that happens you've already met the catalyst (the master of the reapers) and thus it makes no sense for that to happen, since the catalyst kinda says that you deserve to be there to shape the galaxy.
Why would reapers destroy the crucible if their master decided that shep should not be killed yet and allowed to make the decision first?

It makes you wonder how much control the Catalyst actually has, I agree.  Are the Reapers sentient and able to determine self-preservation?

[Allan Schumacher]

Would it be possible to get a comment from you regarding the amount of EMS available in only Single Player without any influence from Multiplayer or iOS Apps?

I have had a few people ask me about this and I'm going to have to deflect it, sorry.

I had zero input to the creation of ME3 so I'm not comfortable speaking on behalf of the team that did produce it since I don't know any details. If the thread links to an issue and you feel it's valid, I'll say that there's a good chance it HAS been seen, and if you feel strongly enough about it continue to discuss it in a generally polite manner and maybe try to bring it to the attention of Mike Gamble or someone similar.

[Allan Schumacher]

draken-heart wrote...

 Allan, what logical reason can you come up with for the fact that the Quarian-Geth peace thingy appears to favor the Quarians. i mean:

• +2 for blowing up the heretics
• +2 for making sure the Migrant fleet does not exile Tali
• +1 for Saving admiral Zal'Koris Vas Qwib-Qwib

seems to me that BW wants us to see the Quarians as right and the Geth as traitors. (this fits as peace nets both Quarian and Geth assets)

No, it's not that at all.  In order to get peace between the Quarians and Geth, it's the Quarians you need to convince to stop attacking.  It makes perfect sense that you need to have greater influence over the Quarians since they're the ones being pigheaded during the final fight.

I don't think the Geth are traitors, and in fact I actually chose the Geth initially myself, though I ended up with peace in the end.

[Allan Schumacher]

In the system where literally everything revolves around engineering the crucible and defending it in space from reapers, how would Krogan killing Husks on Earth contribute to this at all, let alone in the huge number (around 800 EMS points on my playthrough I think) that they do?

By freeing up those that can work on it? The Krogan aren't just fighting Husks on Earth. They're also fighting Palaven, and possibly elsewhere too.

At this point though, I've stated my explanation for why it doesn't cause a _logical_ inconsistency for myself. If the EMS is a bone of contention for people, that's fine and I don't think it's without merit.