247 réponses à ce sujet

[Tenshi]

httinks2006 wrote...
No not true thats also at the heart of this whole debate Bioware had this game marketed as your Shepard , your choices mattered ,so right there if thats what you truly believe you have no clue what anyone is talking about when they play Mass Effect . It's not Batman , Call of duty,battlefield, Halo ,Uncharted ,Infamous etc get your facts straight ...

i see you have da: origins in your list, you should know how it looks when you have YOUR character. shepard is not in same category. sorry to break it for you.

[httinks2006]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

httinks2006 wrote...
No not true thats also at the heart of this whole debate Bioware had this game marketed as your Shepard , your choices mattered ,so right there if thats what you truly believe you have no clue what anyone is talking about when they play Mass Effect . It's not Batman , Call of duty,battlefield, Halo ,Uncharted ,Infamous etc get your facts straight ...

i see you have da: origins in your list, you should know how it looks when you have YOUR character. shepard is not in same category. sorry to break it for you.

No once again you're wrong Shepard is determined by what you choose for him/her in so many facets to give you a character which is yours from superficial looks gender ,class personal history, to countless choices of how your character interacts with the world and npcs who inhabit its worlds .
So youre trying to say because Dragon age gives you many different races , many diffirent classes and  many varying backgrounds that you should feel those are the only way that the character can truly be yours rubbish.
Batman as an example is more where you should be defending if I claimed that  "I'm the Bat " we know the history , we know the lore , SHEPARD  we created along with Bioware which they 've stated a few times now. 

Try again

[Kulthar Drax]

I would like to be able to have the option to distrust the Catalyst and kick his butt to the curb. There really is no reason to trust him (as many people have pointed out. He is here to wipe us out after all). His arguments are also severely flawed, as paraphrased below:

Starkid: The Created will always rebel against their Creators.

Shepard: I see. You created the Reapers, right?

Starkid: Yes. They are my solution to the problem.

Shepard: The problem of Chaos, yes I get it. Have they rebelled against you?

Starkid: No.

Shepard: So...the created don't always rebel against their creators. Synthetics don't always kill Organics. We even have clean cut evidence of this in our own cycle.

Starkid: I...well...

Shepard: Your argument is flawed. Get the hell out of our galaxy.

Modifié par Kulthar Drax, 11 mai 2012 - 06:29 .

[richard_rider]

Kulthar Drax wrote...

I would like to be able to have the option to distrust the Catalyst and kick his butt to the curb. There really is no reason to trust him (as many people have pointed out. He is here to wipe us out after all). His arguments are also severely flawed, as paraphrased below:

Starkid: The Created will always rebel against their Creators.

Shepard: I see. You created the Reapers, right?

Starkid: Yes. They are my solution to the problem.

Shepard: The problem of Chaos, yes I get it. Have they rebelled against you?

Starkid: No.

Shepard: So...the created don't always rebel against their creators. Synthetics don't always kill Organics. We even have clean cut evidence of this in our own cycle.

Starkid: I...well...

Shepard: Your argument is flawed. Get the hell out of our galaxy.

but but but...we can't possibly understand him, he's too far above us to use deductive reasoning, common sense and logic, or even provide any kind of proof...his word is law and we must sheepeshly obey. All hail our new reaper overlords!

[The Night Mammoth]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

httinks2006 wrote...
I absolutely know my Shepard would never have given in to this

your shepard? its bioware character. not yours. just because you were choosing A or B answers dont make it your character.

It's the player's character to shape. By this point a lot of people see their Shepard as their character, because they develop who he/she is.

they can do whatever they want with him.

In a literal sense, sure. 

Should they be doing whatever they want? No. 

[NobodyofConsequence]

Setting aside my personal dislike of the ending/s, and my personal reservations about how those endings were conveyed, judging the Reapers and the Starchild by human standards, using human logic and human morality as the basis of that judgement, misses the point of what the Reapers are. They are Cthonic baddies. They do not care for our morality or values system or ways of thinking, and on that basis, using the suffering they cause as the basis for any argument against them and their purpose will always fall short. This was foreshadowed by Sovereign, and then again by Harbinger. I personally applaud that ambition, even if I dislike the execution, and denoument. Alien baddies who are actually impossible to understand, because of the limits of human perception, can end up being cheesily done, but it's a hell of a thing to aim for.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

We know with certainty that the Reapers want to kill us, and are justified in that conclusion. Wreav thinks all Salarians are scheming idiots who are out ot get him, so he is not.

For one, the catalyst himself is NOT a Reaper in any state of the union. So the certain knowledge we know about the Reapers really do not apply to him. On that note, the characteristics that the catalyst exhbits are nothing like those of the Reapers we've spoken to: Sovereign, Harbinger...

It's one of them. It controls them. Its motive are the Reaper's motives, their actions are its actions. 

Might be digging myself into a hole here, considering this depends on taking some things at face value and not others. 

In Wreav's case, sure, not all salarians may be bad. But Mordin being there and claiming to help is hardly compelling evidence that he's not one of those bad apples. Besides, it really seems as though those salarians that are not supportive of the genophage are few and far between: Mordin (after he was supportive of it earlier), Padok, and that's about it. Kirrahe appears neutral, Lt. Tolan standing in his place does support it. Both salarian councilors commend Shepard if the cure was sabotaged. And of couse, the dalatrass.

There's a stupid number of variables here, which kind of supports my point. Wreav is generalising all Salarians based on the Genophage. He is wrong to do so.

There's no need to generalize the Reapers.

Yes I remember Legion's dialgoue. 

They kill everyone. Whether the basic genetic 'essence' is stored is kind of moot. To get to that stage the harvested people have to die. Then these Reapers are used to kill more organics. In my mind that makes everything worse. The Reapers are using their defeated enemies as the material to build more death-dealing machines to commit the same attrocities their enemy tried to fight against.

But surely, Reaper harvesting cycles are at least better than what they are meant to protect against: synthetics that kill all organic life outright, advanced or not, and with no preservation of that organic life at all.

In that sense, their goal is not to kill, but protect.

Only if you believe that part. I don't. 

So, the Catalyst is either lying, or the Reapers are even worse in that everything is based on a flawed premise, the entire cycle is pointless. 

Assuming it is correct though, does that excuse the genocide of countless species and eons of civilization? I don't think so. 

And you need to stop further Reaper cycles.

Not my singular objective. Shepard wants to save this iteration of the cycle by destroying the Reapers.

Still not clear how this is different than the Destroy path he proposes, unless you believe that destroying the Citadel is the answer.

Ok, assuming what it says is right, I have to commit murder to achieve it. I have to destroy the Relays and screw over the galaxy, subsequently stranding my crew. Not my definition of victory.

Taking everything with a pinch of salt, the only two things that are certain are the destruction of the Relays and the the death of the Reapers. In this situation though I'd choose blue to headcannon a new situation. 

In the end though, if you want to play the game, you have to deal with the cards dealt to you.

I'll be back.

I don't like the cards. It's a loaded deck.

[His Name was HYR!!]

[quote]a.m.p wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

That's because the decision about killing/sparing the rachni was intended to revolve around that. The ending was not about trusting/distrusting the catalyst, it is about deciding how to end the Reaper threat. Of course, how you play is up to you. If it's an issue of trust to you, play accordingly. Personally, I call that overthinking, when you believe something is an issue when it's never established to be.[/quote]
This is the one final choice upon which the fate of the galaxy is depending. There can not be too much thinking about what to do here.

A good story does not require out-of-universe explanations to work. A good story is internally consistent. The ending we have is not. It doesn't just require out-of-universe explanations, it requires everyone in-universe to be morons. It's broken.[/quote][/quote]

To clarify - I don't believe there is too much thinking. Just a tendency to think things are much more complex than they actually are. Such is the case with the catalyst - believing him or not. I'll go over all of it. He, for one, is telling you everything about the Reapers when he does not have to. He brought you to his lair when he could have chosen to leave you at the master control unit, and the Reapers could have just sabotaged the crucible and went on with business. He's even giving you the option to destroy the Reapers, it just comes at the "cost" of the geth and all other synthetics. And despite whatever he believes, he can't make you choose anything.

If there are any issues with this scene, establishing the catalyst's trustworthiness really is not one of them.

Also, I find it a little questionable to assume human characterisitics/motivations behind an entity like the catalyst that is clearly not human. It is not even organic.


[quote]
[quote]Besides which, how did the rachni decision turn out in the end?[/quote]Saved her, actually. Because at that point of the story my character was recently made spectre and was pursuing another rogue spectre, and genocide wasn't in her job description. Later doubted that decision. Saved her the second time because needed more allies.

The option to kill her in this case makes the option to trust her a choice and gives it meaning.
Let's again look at the catalyst. The very final ultimate choice. That is not a choice at all. The fact that the people who designed this scene did not understand that baffles me. The way you end the reaper threat 100% depends on whether you trust the information you've been given. You can not just say, "okay, this reaper is a good reaper, he tells the truth, your character believes him, now pick a color". This is terrible writing and game design and it insults your audience's intelligence. Audiences generally don't appreciate that.[/quote]

First of all, the catalyst is not a reaper. Whatever he is, though, he states his purpose clearly and there is little reason to rationally doubt him too (see above).

Apart from that, what other option do you have? Destroying the Citadel might not be safe at all. The lore establishes early that conventional victory is not possible.


[quote]I repeat, a good story is internally consistent. Character actions are explained by character motivations, not by writer motivations.[/quote]

I don't think there's any question that the ending is poorly written. But when you know it's poorly written, why would you judge the character (catalyst) based on what he is/isn't saying?


[quote][quote]At some point, the player has to fill in the blanks where it applies. There's no way around it.[/quote]

Yes. Yes there is. And there always was. Until the ending. Bioware prides themselves as a developer who puts storytelling above all else. Legion running out of ammo and us looking for loot is game mechanics. They have next to nothing to do with the story being told. And that story stops making sense at the most important moment.[/quote]

What about gameplay mechanics that do have to do with the story? Examples...


-- Persuation in ME2. Your persuation is not going to last long unless you're consistently choosing paragon or renegade, even with the ME1 bonus. Playing from scratch? You basically have no choice. As a result, most people don't even pretend they aren't playing with one-sided morality.
-- Persuation in all games - how do you as a player know exactly what will be persuasive and what will not? Because you see blue and red text. Most don't even consider the non-highlighted text when red/blue shows up.
-- Loyalty in ME2. How do you know a squadmate is fit for a particular task? Part of it is whether or not you have their loyalty, but how do you know they're loyal? You completed Kasumi's mission, but she could still be heartbroken about what happened to her boyfriend. She either lost all those memories (greybox destroyed) or relives them every day and has not moved on (greybox kept). Tali is supposedly not bothered by being exiled, but how do you know she's not as ashamed of being convicted as if you exposed her father? How do you know that Legion, a robot, is upset that you sided with Tali in the dispute... since when do robots get angsty? You know all this because of the squad-screen, showing who's loyal/not. How you make a right/wrong decision depends on what you the player knows, not necessarily Shepard.

Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'd think of others if I thought about it. Point is, nobody can play this series without using their own knowledge at some point, no matter how hard they might try.

[Segameister]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You've proven nothing.

And, believing him is your choice. There's no reason to, and no reason not to.

Believing him isn't our choice.  Try walking away from the kid, choosing none of the options he gives you. BW doesn't give us a choice.

[Noelemahc]

-- Persuation in ME2. Your persuation is not going to last long unless you're consistently choosing paragon or renegade, even with the ME1 bonus. Playing from scratch? You basically have no choice. As a result, most people don't even pretend they aren't playing with one-sided morality.
-- Persuation in all games - how do you as a player know exactly what will be persuasive and what will not? Because you see blue and red text. Most don't even consider the non-highlighted text when red/blue shows up.
-- Loyalty in ME2. How do you know a squadmate is fit for a particular task? Part of it is whether or not you have their loyalty, but how do you know they're loyal? You completed Kasumi's mission, but she could still be heartbroken about what happened to her boyfriend. She either lost all those memories (greybox destroyed) or relives them every day and has not moved on (greybox kept). Tali is supposedly not bothered by being exiled, but how do you know she's not as ashamed of being convicted as if you exposed her father? How do you know that Legion, a robot, is upset that you sided with Tali in the dispute... since when do robots get angsty? You know all this because of the squad-screen, showing who's loyal/not. How you make a right/wrong decision depends on what you the player knows, not necessarily Shepard.

-- You mean, you've never managed to get to full Paragade without powerplaying? Well, bad luck for you. Even without DLC it's humanly possible to land 100% Para or Rene and about 60% of that other one and have all Para/Rene checks succeed (except for the Morinth one, because it was coded by weirdoes and checks by what degree of magnitude one is higher than the other, NOT their actual values -- it's a dirty trick, just like the Rannoch Peace checking for plot flags when the dialogue is worded in a way that it should actually NEGATE THE NEED for the things they refer to, or the TIM Final Dialogue checking whether you used enough Para/Rene on him in the past)
-- That's my main gripe against the system. It needed more red herrings. The only red herring the entire trilogy has is the Paragon Interrupt you get if you destroy the Quarians. Otherwise it functions as an "I WIN" button, which is a wrong way to design your dialogue system. Note that ME2 generally uses it as a shortcut around longer dialogue trees (like in Thane's and Tali's loyalty missions -- you can succeed in their Para/Rene dialogues by dialogue tree navigation OR by the Red/Blue "I WIN" buttons, and neither outcome is considered to be better or worse than the other).
-- Nonono, you miss the point. If Tali is exiled she doesn't gain the loyalty bonus. If you exposed her father, it plays to fuel her mistrust of him -- which, by ME3, happens ANYWAY. It's internally consistent.
Just as if you frell up Zaeed's revenge (pick the Paragon route, fail to convince him you were right, but free him anyway), he's alive, the mission is completed, he's not loyal. Same for all the other failable loyalty missions. You can infer all of those things from dialogue as much as from the squad screen. It's short-hand for the brain-impaired. (oh, and Legion getting offended is easiest of all -- your "Shepard-Commander Trusts in us Synthetics Rating" drops, as Legion reassesses its ability to depend on you to support it, a perfectly mechanical response, Legion's ability to comprehend and use emotions is unrelated to the matter). Shepard-Commander, in turn, reacts to all of them issues. Didn't you listen to those Para/Rene interrupt lectures she gives when breaking up arguments?

Gameplay and Story Segregation does occur in the MEverse, but not in the cases you've outlined. Sorry.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 12 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[GuardianAngel470]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You've proven nothing.

And, believing him is your choice. There's no reason to, and no reason not to.

The bolding is mine. The OP, in less eloquent terms, detailed EXACTLY why you shouldn't believe him. Unless we are going for the extreme disbelief scenario (in which every single word out of its mouth is a lie) the Starchild is responsible for the deaths of every prothean and advanced civilization in the last cycle and presumably every preceding cycle. 

That is trillions upon trillions upon trillions of lives over billions of years. Murder on that scale is literally unfathomable; humans cannot ever hope to comprehend such a number of lives.

How Starchild could ever in all that is reasonable be considered trustworthy enough to base a galaxy-effecting decision on by anyone is truly beyond me. I do not understand it.

Even if you thought the cycles were a good idea (and you would literally be a monster if you did-as defined by all of society) you would have to be the defacto definition of a hypocrite to side with Starchild or have disagreed with every single line of dialog in the series to date on the subject of the Reapers.

[a.m.p]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
To clarify - I don't believe there is too much thinking. Just a tendency to think things are much more complex than they actually are. Such is the case with the catalyst - believing him or not. I'll go over all of it. He, for one, is telling you everything about the Reapers when he does not have to. He brought you to his lair when he could have chosen to leave you at the master control unit, and the Reapers could have just sabotaged the crucible and went on with business. He's even giving you the option to destroy the Reapers, it just comes at the "cost" of the geth and all other synthetics. And despite whatever he believes, he can't make you choose anything.

How does any of that establish him as trustworthy?
He is telling me stuff that may or may not be truth about the reapers. This stuff also makes very little sense and goes against what I have previously learned about reapers from personal experience.
He brought me to his lair for unknown reasons, while he could have just left me bleed out below and continue with his cycle. Why am I supposed to assume that the entity that claims to have created the cycle would suddenly actively try to stop the cycle that according to it solves the biggest problem of the universe?
He is telling me to shoot a tube and saying it will destroy the reapers. I don't know what will happen if I shoot the tube.
Why am I supposed to assume that doing something offered by the enity that created the cycle will stop the cylce and further my goals and not his?
Also the game is making me choose one of his options in order to proceed.

Also, I find it a little questionable to assume human characterisitics/motivations behind an entity like the catalyst that is clearly not human. It is not even organic.

I don't assume human characteristics for the catalyst. I assume unknown characteristics for the catalyst and human characteristics for Shepard. I am not asking why would the catalyst want to stop the cycle. I am asking why Shepard believes the catalyst would want to stop the cycle.

Apart from that, what other option do you have? Destroying the Citadel might not be safe at all.

It is definitely safer than taking one of the options provided by the entity whose goal is to destroy civilization. The worst that can happen - Sol will be wiped out (and according to the actual ending it wouldn't be).

The lore establishes early that conventional victory is not possible.

The lore provides half a dozen methods to succesfully fight reapers that are all ignored while some the dialogue tells us conventional victory is not possible.

I don't think there's any question that the ending is poorly written.
But when you know it's poorly written, why would you judge the character
(catalyst) based on what he is/isn't saying?

Because according to the EC announcement the eding will not be changed. And no matter what dialogue they add, as long as the design of this scene stays the same (Shepard dragged to the platform, glowing creature appears, states that he created the cycle and reapers are his solution, gives three options, Shepard chooses), the problem will not go away.

It can be fixed in several ways:
1) Cutting starchild completely - not happening.
2) Having Shepard know how to turn on the crucible and what it does before they ever get to London. Having starchild just as the reaper exposition device. Not happening.
3) Redisigning destroy in such a way that it is discovered by Shepard and the catalyst actively resists it. Probably not happening either - would unbalance the options.
4) Giving a fourth option to not pick a color. Not happening? What little information we have suggests so.

What about gameplay mechanics that do have to do with the story? Examples...
*snip*
Those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure I'd think of others if I
thought about it. Point is, nobody can play this series without using
their own knowledge at some point, no matter how hard they might try.

I personally never ever bother with the paragon/renegade system at all. Not on my first playthrough, not on subsequent ones. I pick whatever feels right for the character at any given moment. I didn't get some high requirement dialogue options, but that never really broke the game for me.
I sometimes don't get to paragon/renegade Morinth. Pff, like I ever need another maniac on my ship. I couldn't resolve the conflict between Miranda and Jack in ME2 the first time through (still didn't lose anyone in the suicide mission, and I went into the game completely blind and didn't even know how exactly loyalty affects who lives or dies), I prefer to solve Tali's trial by rallying the crowd even though I get the colored options, and in ME3 the only option I didn't get was to talk TIM into shooting himself. Well, all the better, I was looking forward to shooting him myself since I first met him in ME2.

So no. I was never really forced to explain why my character is acting the way she is acting by second guessing the motivation of the people who wrote the game.

Modifié par a.m.p, 12 mai 2012 - 10:06 .

[Noelemahc]

He is telling me stuff that may or may not be truth about the reapers. This stuff also makes very little sense and goes against what I have previously learned about reapers from personal experience.
He brought me to his lair for unknown reasons, while he could have just left me bleed out below and continue with his cycle.

It would appear, in general, that Mr. Walters and company had a bad case of Jamesbonditis when they were conceiving the plotlines of ME2 and ME3. No other explanations for how Cerberus turns from small-time terrorist organization (ME1) into a clandestine superpower richer than the entire Human Systems Alliance (ME2) with a reputation for terrorism to a public superpower with a whole frakking PR department (ME3). Or why the Catalyst behaves less like the Machine God that he's supposed to be and instead like a cheap comic book villain with half a brain. I mean, come on, if he's truly as magnificient and as omniscient as he has to be in order to be so damn certain of his predictions about the uprising of synthetics and destruction of organics, why in the nine hells does he find himself compelled to spill it to Shepard?

The lore provides half a dozen methods to succesfully fight reapers that are all ignored while some the dialogue tells us conventional victory is not possible.

Let's recount? Thanix, FTL torpedoes, using the Citadel's Relay Control ourselves, whatever it was Daro'Xen was developing in that cut quest of hers (which is implied to be a Logic Bomb strong enough to cripple a geth fleet indefinitely, so I assume it's good as an anti-Reaper flashbang), nukes, superior tactical prowess and, last but not least, the power of rock'n'roll.
Did I forget anything?

Pff, like I ever need another maniac on my ship

I did. She's wasted in ME3, just like most other ME2 characters. And not "wasted" in a good storytelling-justified way like Mordin can be wasted, no. Wasted as in "perfectly good plotline abandoned and thrown out the airlock for reasons unknown".

[a.m.p]

Noelemahc wrote...

The lore provides half a dozen methods to succesfully fight reapers that are all ignored while some the dialogue tells us conventional victory is not possible.

Let's recount? Thanix, FTL torpedoes, using the Citadel's Relay Control ourselves, whatever it was Daro'Xen was developing in that cut quest of hers (which is implied to be a Logic Bomb strong enough to cripple a geth fleet indefinitely, so I assume it's good as an anti-Reaper flashbang), nukes, superior tactical prowess and, last but not least, the power of rock'n'roll.
Did I forget anything?

The junkyard full of prior civilizations' technology around the collector base?

I did. She's wasted in ME3, just like most other ME2 characters. And not
"wasted" in a good storytelling-justified way like Mordin can be wasted, no. Wasted as in "perfectly good plotline abandoned and thrown out the airlock for reasons unknown".

In any case, the paragon/renegade system in its final incarnation in ME3 allows to to play whatever character you want without any penalties, except for the TIM dialogue. Which, as I said, for me personally wasn't an issue. Maybe for someone it is, but that's not the point. Not necessarily being able to persuade a crazy person to shoot themselves does not require long speculations about what the original idea here was and what went horribly wrong to explain.

Modifié par a.m.p, 12 mai 2012 - 11:30 .

[Noelemahc]

The junkyard full of prior civilizations' technology around the collector base?

Crap, I forgot that one. Thanks.

In any case, the paragon/renegade system in its final incarnation in ME3 allows to to play whatever character you want without any penalties, except for the TIM dialogue.

Well, for a relative value of "whatever" and 'without penalties', as Renegades still get the short end of the stick both in regards to WAs (the only time it's WA-beneficial to be a CDS is if you powerplay the genophage situation, and ONLY if Wrex is dead, which not every CDS did, I assume) and team members (as being a CDS sort of means you kill the VS regardless and Tali and Garrus may not have survived the Suicide Mission). It's leveled out by the fact that you're stuck with Morinth, possibly Jack and totally Legion in their "mook with a unique name" states for ME3, which leads to less WAs overall by a LARGE margin, as well as significantly less plot.

They also get less sidequests and fetch quests in ME3 overall, triply more apparent if you're a ME1 import, as the Defaul Bare No-Import ME3 Shepard is treated as having been a low-quality CDS throughout the previous two games, and defaults to the same approach in Ackshun Moad.

Compare and contrast ME1, where you'd at LEAST get more credits overall, as well as sometimes have less enemies to fight... or more enemies to fight, which means more loot and XP, both elements that were re-done and therefore effectively lost in the sequels.

I really really miss the days of KotOR2 where evil characters would get new squadmates to compensate for having killed their good counterparts.

Why can't we recruit Balak? Perfect reward for customer loyalty, that would'a been, as he'd only be accessible to people that owned BDtS. Do the same for Toombs (but, say, make him recruitable only if the VS is dead and, naturally, if he himself lived), a few more characters... Squad interaction? What squad interaction? Outside of talking to Shepard every character-to-character combination that doesn't hook up (e.g. everyone except Team Dextro, mwahaha) only has one conversation at best, and some don't have even that.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 12 mai 2012 - 11:45 .

[Dean_the_Young]

a.m.p wrote...

The junkyard full of prior civilizations' technology around the collector base?

Why in the world would the technology of other civilizations that the Reapers have annihalated and wiped from history be superior to the Reapers?

Even ignorring that there's nothings implied to be special about those vessels in the first place, the simple fact of their location means that the Reapers have had millenia of exclusive access to study and understand them.

In any case, the paragon/renegade system in its final incarnation in ME3 allows to to play whatever character you want without any penalties, except for the TIM dialogue. Which, as I said, for me personally wasn't an issue. Maybe for someone it is, but that's not the point. Not necessarily being able to persuade a crazy person to shoot themselves does not require long speculations about what the original idea here was and what went horribly wrong to explain.

This is completely correct. The ME3 system certainly took away exclusivitiy away from any persuasion side, but that allowed players to be much more free in choosing their dialogue options. Having to choose Paragon/Renegade for the sake of a later Paragon/Renegade is much less of an issue.

[Noelemahc]

Why in the world would the technology of other civilizations that the Reapers have annihalated and wiped from history be superior to the Reapers?

Superior? No. Possessing interesting weapon designs, eezo cores to be salvaged and materials we may not have known previously for armour plating? Heck yes.

Having to choose Paragon/Renegade for the sake of a later Paragon/Renegade is much less of an issue.

That's about the only upside ME3's dialogue system has. Too bad the actual Para/Rene options are now too dependant on plot flags =(

[a.m.p]

Noelemahc wrote...

The junkyard full of prior civilizations' technology around the collector base?

Crap, I forgot that one. Thanks.

In any case, the paragon/renegade system in its final incarnation in ME3 allows to to play whatever character you want without any penalties, except for the TIM dialogue.

Well, for a relative value of "whatever" and 'without penalties', as Renegades still get the short end of the stick both in regards to WAs (the only time it's WA-beneficial to be a CDS is if you powerplay the genophage situation, and ONLY if Wrex is dead, which not every CDS did, I assume) and team members (as being a CDS sort of means you kill the VS regardless and Tali and Garrus may not have survived the Suicide Mission). It's leveled out by the fact that you're stuck with Morinth, possibly Jack and totally Legion in their "mook with a unique name" states for ME3, which leads to less WAs overall by a LARGE margin, as well as significantly less plot.

They also get less sidequests and fetch quests in ME3 overall, triply more apparent if you're a ME1 import, as the Defaul Bare No-Import ME3 Shepard is treated as having been a low-quality CDS throughout the previous two games, and defaults to the same approach in Ackshun Moad.

Compare and contrast ME1, where you'd at LEAST get more credits overall, as well as sometimes have less enemies to fight... or more enemies to fight, which means more loot and XP, both elements that were re-done and therefore effectively lost in the sequels.

I really really miss the days of KotOR2 where evil characters would get new squadmates to compensate for having killed their good counterparts.

Why can't we recruit Balak? Perfect reward for customer loyalty, that would'a been, as he'd only be accessible to people that owned BDtS. Do the same for Toombs (but, say, make him recruitable only if the VS is dead and, naturally, if he himself lived), a few more characters... Squad interaction? What squad interaction? Outside of talking to Shepard every character-to-character combination that doesn't hook up (e.g. everyone except Team Dextro, mwahaha) only has one conversation at best, and some don't have even that.

Well, that's a whole other set of problems . I guess, what I'm really talking about is that previously what was happening could for the most part be justified without trying to figure out who exactly wrote that bit of the game and what the hell did that person try to say by it.

Noelemahc wrote...

Why in
the world would the technology of other civilizations that the Reapers
have annihalated and wiped from history be superior to the Reapers?

Superior?
No. Possessing interesting weapon designs, eezo cores to be salvaged
and materials we may not have known previously for armour plating? Heck
yes.

It's often said that the protheans took centuries to defeat because they were so much more advanced than us. So how about we look for prothean tech in there?
How about we look for the tech of whoever built the klendagon cannon?
Or somebody equally advanced who lost to the reapers mostly because of the citadel trap working?

[Eire Icon]

httinks2006 wrote...

@Eire Icon

The questions keeps coming up because it lies at the heart of  why many people find the ending  so distasteful . In a ground breaking earth shattering triology based on choice , and where the choice matters the most .
We are as greatly stated  ,railroaded into making  out of character choices ,given by the enemies leader which our very survivor depends on ,without even a heated arguement of why it's logic is flawed or even the choice to flatly refuse it's logic as a supposed surperior life form with it's own agenda .
I'm not a believer in a no win scenario as long as we live ,as long as we can fight we will and can find a way . i remember many of rpg battles that I had felt were impossible to win , I found a way . I recall reading guides to how people approached their end battles and won , but were totally destroyed when using their sugestions and play styles .
I know from experience at the beginning of the majority of games the villian is untouchable , at the end you always have a chance no matter the difficulty you can find a way to win .
Life has proven so many times we can overcome what people percieve as an impossible feat , and you know what its no longer impossible once it's been accomplished .

You know what myself as Shepard I neither need nor seek the Catalysts SOLUTIONS . And I believe my options of destroying the Catalyst is a CHOICE I should have been given .

While I see where you're coming from I couldn't disagree more

"Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all. "

Mass Effect is certainly about choice, Shepards choices. You control his decisions but not the fate of the universe. The fact of the matter is its not always possible for David to beat Goliath. I can understand completely how people would not want a no win type of scenario for the conclusion, I do not understand however howm they claim the lack of it is illogical. Underdogs generally lose in life and Shepard is the under dog

Allot of the posts on here seem to criticize the conseuences of Shepards choices.- "I don't want the Geth to die"

This is not something Shepard can control, nor should he be able to. He is just one guy, he's only human

[httinks2006]

[quote]Eire Icon wrote...

[quote]httinks2006 wrote...

@Eire Icon

The questions keeps coming up because it lies at the heart of  why many people find the ending  so distasteful . In a ground breaking earth shattering triology based on choice , and where the choice matters the most .
We are as greatly stated  ,railroaded into making  out of character choices ,given by the enemies leader which our very survivor depends on ,without even a heated arguement of why it's logic is flawed or even the choice to flatly refuse it's logic as a supposed surperior life form with it's own agenda .
I'm not a believer in a no win scenario as long as we live ,as long as we can fight we will and can find a way . i remember many of rpg battles that I had felt were impossible to win , I found a way . I recall reading guides to how people approached their end battles and won , but were totally destroyed when using their sugestions and play styles .
I know from experience at the beginning of the majority of games the villian is untouchable , at the end you always have a chance no matter the difficulty you can find a way to win .
Life has proven so many times we can overcome what people percieve as an impossible feat , and you know what its no longer impossible once it's been accomplished .

You know what myself as Shepard I neither need nor seek the Catalysts SOLUTIONS . And I believe my options of destroying the Catalyst is a CHOICE I should have been given .



[/quote]

While I see where you're coming from I couldn't disagree more

"Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all. "

[quote] Mass Effect does reflect real life, but yet it Doesn't  anything is possible it's  a Video Game,they're interactive media  .This has never been a game with absolute realistic life mechanics. We have powers , abilities beyond what we know as reality, yes there are loses along the way to bring you into the story ,Love has motivated some of the fierces conflicts ever known and has been the inspiration to over come all odds, something worth fighting for.[quote]



Mass Effect is certainly about choice, Shepards choices. You control his decisions but not the fate of the universe. The fact of the matter is its not always possible for David to beat Goliath. I can understand completely how people would not want a no win type of scenario for the conclusion, I do not understand however howm they claim the lack of it is illogical. Underdogs generally lose in life and Shepard is the under dog

[quote] """I disagree Shepard is the Underdog , He's the Hero , The Xfactor that changes a continuing cycle of untold revolutions to the one that can finally break the so said cycle"" He's brought change and accomplished  feats no one before him was able to do. [quote]

Allot of the posts on here seem to criticize the conseuences of Shepards choices.- "I don't want the Geth to die"

This is not something Shepard can control, nor should he be able to. He is just one guy, he's only human[/quote]


[quote] Sheaprd represents more than just being human , he's not just a man,he's  a Hero that rises above what most are willing, can or able to do.[quote]

Great quote When life isn't depressing enough play Mass Effect 3

I don't play video games to mirror real life if you want that, play the sims. I play video Games to relax to get away from the stress of the real world or real life .I become a part of that world until the adventure ends .
why on this great big  green earth would I want to play a game based on real life constraints. Some are fine for story telling purposes and making sure you're not a superman in every game you play .

Maybe it's even fine if the game is presented to be such. Mass Effect has never been that and has proven countless times that what was thought impossible Shepard has achieved .

Modifié par httinks2006, 15 mai 2012 - 02:24 .

[Eire Icon]

httinks2006 wrote...

 Mass Effect does reflect real life, but yet it Doesn't  anything is possible it's  a Video Game,they're interactive media  .This has never been a game with absolute realistic life mechanics. We have powers , abilities beyond what we know as reality, yes there are loses along the way to bring you into the story ,Love has motivated some of the fierces conflicts ever known and has been the inspiration to over come all odds, something worth fighting for.

Well thats a subjective thing, theres no right or wrong answer. While I don't expect ME to mirror life completely, I do expect it to conform to its own story.

Yes Shepard is an outstanding individual, humanitys champion if you will, but he is still just one guy. He is still human.

httinks2006 wrote...
"""I disagree Shepard is the Underdog , He's the Hero , The Xfactor that changes a continuing cycle of untold revolutions to the one that can finally break the so said cycle"" He's brought change and accomplished  feats no one before him was able to do. .

Not really sure where you're coming from on this one, I agree with the above. Shepard dosen't fail no matter which ending you choose. He simply has to make some tough decisions which have consequences. You might prefer a "Happily ever after" ending thats all wrapped up in a nice little package. I however, would not like to see that. There have to be major consequences to the greatest war in human history, and there are

httinks2006 wrote...
Sheaprd represents more than just being human , he's not just a man,he's  a Hero that rises above what most are willing, can or able to do.

Great quote When life isn't depressing enough play Mass Effect 3

I don't play video games to mirror real life if you want that, play the sims. I play video Games to relax to get away from the stress of the real world or real life .I become a part of that world until the adventure ends .
why on this great big  green earth would I want to play a game based on real life constraints. Some are fine for story telling purposes and making sure you're not a superman in every game you play .

Maybe it's even fine if the game is presented to be such. Mass Effect has never been that and has proven countless times that what was thought impossible Shepard has achieved .

All very valid and all your own personal opinion. Whats true for one person is not true for the other.

What your Shepard means to you does not mean everyones Shepard means the same to them. This has always been the challange Bioware faced.

[httinks2006]

[quote]Eire Icon wrote...

[quote]httinks2006 wrote...

 Mass Effect does reflect real life, but yet it Doesn't  anything is possible it's  a Video Game,they're interactive media  .This has never been a game with absolute realistic life mechanics. We have powers , abilities beyond what we know as reality, yes there are loses along the way to bring you into the story ,Love has motivated some of the fierces conflicts ever known and has been the inspiration to over come all odds, something worth fighting for.[/quote]

Well thats a subjective thing, theres no right or wrong answer. While I don't expect ME to mirror life completely, I do expect it to conform to its own story.

[quote] This is at the heart of why so many people have a disdain for the ghostchild , starchild,godchild, and vent boy as the angry one likes to call him.
     All through Mass Effect we have been given a set of rules, that as you put it conform to it's story, then suddenly at the end the rug is pulled from under us saying , we 're Bioware new rules  SPACE MAGIC . So i do thank you for bringing that up have having a civil conversation about the whole issue which makes it an enjoyable topic to debate.[quote]

Yes Shepard is an outstanding individual, humanitys champion if you will, but he is still just one guy. He is still human.
[quote]
See this, we really won't agree on for the simple fact ,that in all games the Hero is more ,it's their story . it's why we play the game from their view point because they have the ability , will, power and for the majority of the games the only one that can bring the story to an end
. They could be  the last of their  race of magic users, They can be a lost Jedi regaining who they once were , they could be the voice and protector next to the princess who's saving the world. They can even themselves have the untapped power to defeat the evil that wishes to consume the world.
It's the Hero journey it's more than about being a regular Joe ,it's about surpassing the impossible and overcoming overwhelming odds, that's what the Hero does[quote]
[quote]httinks2006 wrote...
"""I disagree Shepard is the Underdog , He's the Hero , The Xfactor that changes a continuing cycle of untold revolutions to the one that can finally break the so said cycle"" He's brought change and accomplished  feats no one before him was able to do. .[/quote]

Not really sure where you're coming from on this one, I agree with the above. Shepard dosen't fail no matter which ending you choose. He simply has to make some tough decisions which have consequences. You might prefer a "Happily ever after" ending thats all wrapped up in a nice little package. I however, would not like to see that. There have to be major consequences to the greatest war in human history, and there are

[quote] This will also be something we won't agree on also because there have been major consequences up to this point not everyone needs to die to have mass effect a success it's unrealistic  to believe only death for Shepard and or his crew  will give a satifying conclusion to the story. {the deaths that did happen within the story were story driven and I agree were handled within the context of the storyline for dramatic effect and to immerce you deeper in the story}
You don't think there has been major consequences already not only for the galaxy but for Shepard and his crew ?
personally I do like happy endings tied in a nice little package , though i could have been satified if the ending sacrifice for Shepard would have been meaningful and not SPACE MAGIC . True I wouldn't have liked it as much as a happy ending but I would have lived with it [quote]


[quote]httinks2006 wrote...
Sheaprd represents more than just being human , he's not just a man,he's  a Hero that rises above what most are willing, can or able to do.

Great quote When life isn't depressing enough play Mass Effect 3

I don't play video games to mirror real life if you want that, play the sims. I play video Games to relax to get away from the stress of the real world or real life .I become a part of that world until the adventure ends .
why on this great big  green earth would I want to play a game based on real life constraints. Some are fine for story telling purposes and making sure you're not a superman in every game you play .

Maybe it's even fine if the game is presented to be such. Mass Effect has never been that and has proven countless times that what was thought impossible Shepard has achieved .

[/quote]

All very valid and all your own personal opinion. Whats true for one person is not true for the other.

What your Shepard means to you does not mean everyones Shepard means the same to them. This has always been the challange Bioware faced.
   
 
[/quote]   

This we do agree on,  Bioware made promises, that  were maybe too ambitious for even them to pull off, they gave us a character to mold into who we wanted them to be and since we play our Shepards differently and have different beliefs on who Shepard is at the end of the day so to speak they lost their way on how to satify everyones expectations .

[Shepard Wins]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

You've proven nothing.

And, believing him is your choice. There's no reason to, and no reason not to.

Ah yes. Ambiguity, I presume...?