131 réponses à ce sujet

[Cucobr]

Optimystic_X wrote...

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.

Two theories here:

1) Higher EMS = more protection/better construction for the Crucible  = it takes less damage. This would then allow it to either release a more controlled blast, or more accurately target Reapers while sparing other forms of life (including Shepard.)

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.


I personally prefer the second, but you can even combine the two.

The game shows the Crucible receiving damage, Independent of the value of your EMS?

[mesmerizedish]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

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.

It's a contrived abstraction. EMS isn't bad in and of itself, but how "well" the Crucible works should be based solely on the Crucible portion of EMS. How much damage it takes should be based solely on the strength of its protective fleet, not total EMS.

[PsyrenY]

Cucobr wrote...

The game shows the Crucible receiving damage, Independent of the value of your EMS?

All the more reason that the second option makes sense (strength of Reaper forces.) 

[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 .

[Cucobr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

OK.

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

[stevefox1200]

I not sure how a bomber fleet for ground warfare helps protect the Crucible if they are building it in space

EMS just seems like the easiest way to make choices "matter" but in the end its just a number (in Mario a coin gives me 100 EMS). I would have preferred just not showing the number and make it a hidden value because just flat out saying that "wrex is worth 30" really exposes its simplicity

[Naugi]

We've had this conversation before and Allan commented before that basically EMS provides the necessary threshold for different things to happen based on what you have achieved in the game. Games need a threshold, a way to make X amount of effort = A result and Y amount of effort = B result.

Usually its done in a way that is less superficial however. In my opinion its done very poorly in ME3 as the nature of the war assets in a lot of cases has no apparent relevance to things like Shepards chances of survival. The fact that you have to come on a forum to ask how the hell your war assets changed the ending choices is evidence of how poorly it was handled.

Allans theory is good, but I still feel like in the end EMS is a hollow, superficial 'magic number' that in the case of ME3 doesnt have the decency to disguise itself as anything else.

You at least want a logical equation like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you can kill 20 extra enemies' rather than what ME3 presents which is more like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you dont die when your house explodes' where the relationship between the two is vague at best.

Modifié par Naugi, 21 avril 2012 - 03:15 .

[Cucobr]

Allan Schumacher can be in text, audio or video... I only want to know the moment when this occurs... because I did not notice.

[Ericus]

Naugi wrote...

You at least want a logical equation like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you can kill 20 extra enemies' rather than what ME3 presents which is more like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you dont die' where the relationship between the two is vague at best.

Exactly.  If the things we spent the game gathering had a direct and obvious link to the functionality of the Crucible, I suspect everyone would be satisfied.

[UniqueName001]

I agree that the fact that the ending omits the synthesis option if you have a low EMS (which, whatever it's explanation in game, is effectively how hard you worked to get to the ending) seems to indicate that the writer believes that it is the best option.

I also believe that the synthesis option is the most thematically harmful to the game.  I consider it to be the most serious failure in the story and in the ending.  It has no basis in the lore or themes of the game and no reason to be there other than the writer thought it was "cool".

iakus wrote...

Operative:  Are you willing to die for those beliefs?
Mal:  I am...
::gunfire erupts::
Mal: ...'Course, that's not exactly "Plan A"

Awesome, that's perfect

[Naugi]

Ericus wrote...

Naugi wrote...

You at least want a logical equation like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you can kill 20 extra enemies' rather than what ME3 presents which is more like 'collecting 20 extra nukes means you dont die' where the relationship between the two is vague at best.

Exactly.  If the things we spent the game gathering had a direct and obvious link to the functionality of the Crucible, I suspect everyone would be satisfied.

Indeed. Imagine if one of the war assets was a Crucible escape pod which allows for safe evacuation from the Crucible, there you have your War Asset that increases your chance of survival, and thats how most games would handle things, where [item A] has a logical, easily recognised effect on [outcome X].

[Tietj]

I think I would be less opposed to the EMS system if I could get the amount required to see every ending in single player alone. As it is, it's not possible, and that has kind of soured me on the whole system.

[Naugi]

Tietj wrote...

I think I would be less opposed to the EMS system if I could get the amount required to see every ending in single player alone. As it is, it's not possible, and that has kind of soured me on the whole system.

Trust me, you're not missing anything. I got max EMS with 100% GR from multiplayer and I still chose Destroy as Synthesis was just a crazy idea, even though the higher EMS needed suggests its a better option. Thats like suddenly telling us that the best thing that could have happened in the Star Trek universe is everyone being assimilated by the Borg.

[PsyrenY]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

If you think about it, it has to have some way of tracking Reapers. Suppose they weren't all in Sol? This goes double for Control, where you would have to know where they are in order to command them properly - if you plan on using them for anything useful, anyway.

[Cucobr]

Indoctrination Theory can explain those kind of things that Allan is trying to explain.


but...



Artist Integrity appears
It's super effective

[Cobra's_back]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Thanks Allen

[Muhkida]

Kind of out of the way but this in a nutshell...

Higher EMS = Alliance forces holding/winning in key areas in galaxy = More Reaper forces focused on said alliances = Less Reaper forces focused on harassing Crucible Project = Happy people working on Crucible = Crucible with happy results.

But I'm just grasping straws at this point.

Modifié par Muhkida, 21 avril 2012 - 03:30 .

[kalasaurus]

Agreed. I like the idea of having three morally ambiguous choices in the end. All three choices require some kind of compromise of morals/ideals, at least that's how I see it. Like what Javik says, can Shepard really expect to win this war with her honor in tact?

With EMS unlocking two different choices, there's an obvious hierarchy. Most players destroyed the Collector Base (and I believe it's the default choice), so it's Destroy -> Control -> Synthesis. I understand work on the Crucible/EMS may unlock certain choices, but it just irks me. EMS really should just determine how much damage the crucible fire causes (like if they couldn't finely tune it not to misfire and set earth on fire) and how prepared everyone is in battle.

[ogj835]

Makes me wonder if the minor differences in your EMS rating is what gave them the idea to say there were 16 different endings, lol.

[dekkerd]

Hackett states early in the game to think of the fleets as an escort for the crucible. Not ideal, granted, but it's there.

[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 .

[Abreu Road]

Mass Effect 3 does a great job to contradicts itself and the first two games.

It kind of have inconsistences all over. The ending just take this to the level of absurdity.

[Isichar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

I expected something more like the ME2 suicide mission. Instead of characters you get races put through the meat grinder and only the ones you really went out of your way to help survive, still keep EMS but this way you still feel like your choices mattered to each race.

EMS is fine on determining the final choice, but it does not do well to show how each individual race fares againt the reapers in the final war.

Modifié par Isichar, 21 avril 2012 - 03:50 .