346 réponses à ce sujet

[thisisme8]

LiarasShield wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Is that really the only justification for how that ended we fought a human reaper and a race that was suppose to be extinct over 50 thousand years ago but you didn't see shepard give up or surrender then or give into harbinger because harbingers way is so much better and joker didn't leave the fight right he picked up shepard and squad?

Harbinger is a Reaper.  The Catalyst created the Reapers as his solution.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Is that really the only justification for how that ended we fought a human reaper and a race that was suppose to be extinct over 50 thousand years ago but you didn't see shepard give up or surrender then or give into harbinger because harbingers way is so much better and joker didn't leave the fight right he picked up shepard and squad?

Harbinger is a Reaper.  The Catalyst created the Reapers as his solution.

Still not helping the fact that shepard shouldn't trust or give into the catalyst since he controls the reapers and should at least have the option of denieing his claims or going against them

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Basically, in DA2 everybody except Hawke is an idiot. In ME3, Shepard is the idiot.

In ME3, Shepard is faced with an insurmountable obstacle and takes the only assured path to end the cycle.

Is that really the only justification for how that ended we fought a human reaper and a race that was suppose to be extinct over 50 thousand years ago but you didn't see shepard give up or surrender then or give into harbinger because harbingers way is so much better and joker didn't leave the fight right he picked up shepard and squad?

Harbinger is a Reaper.  The Catalyst created the Reapers as his solution.

Why is the Catalyst so much more trustworthy than Harbinger then?
Is it because it takes the form of a child and tries to sugar-coat it's genocidal acts?

If that's the only thing it took to convince Shepard, everyone from Sovereign to Saren to Harbinger must be banging their heads against a wall.

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

But I could argue that in DA:O:  You must always pick a ruler, you must always pick a martyr, you must always fight the Dragon on the roof.

Like I said before, the scope is too big too.  DA:O was a single game with much fewer choices than the entire ME series.

An important part of player agency is the illusion of free will. In DA:O you do not feel shoehorned into these situations, but rather they come naturally as part as your role as the Warden.
You're always aware you must do things to unite the races against the Darkspawn. You know you must face down the Archdemon.
Conversely in ME3 you never expect that at the end, your only option will be to capitulate to the Reaper King.

Also, you tell me how Shepard could have stopped the cycle at the end of ME3 in any other way.  Go ahead.  Give me one other path that Shepard could have taken that would have guaranteed the end of the cycle and the survival of life.  Shepard isn't being an idiot, he/she is only doing what he/she has to do in order to guarantee survival.

The Catalyst is the self-proclaimed controller of the Reapers and appears to inhabit the Presidium tower.
Hence, contact Hackett and call in a dreadnought strike on the tower. Obliterate the Catalyst and send the Reapers into a frenzy of confusion, allowing a conventional victory.

That's just one possibility.

Does destryong the Citadel assure the end of the cycle?  No.  It may.  But the stakes are too high to maybe end the cycle.  Besides, we already know that the Reapers can and do act independant of the Catalyst.  The only way to exert any form of control over them (whether to destroy or control) is via the crucible and one of the options presented by the Catalyst.

[LiarasShield]

Brings me to another thread topic I'm gonna post in awhile about why build harbinger up so much in me2 give him so many lines of dialogue make him feel like he may be the main antagonist against shepard in mass effect 3 since shepard and forces don't destroy him in 2 and then give him only the small role of blasting hammer during their run to the citadel beam U_u

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

Why is the Catalyst so much more trustworthy than Harbinger then?
Is it because it takes the form of a child and tries to sugar-coat it's genocidal acts?

If that's the only thing it took to convince Shepard, everyone from Sovereign to Saren to Harbinger must be banging their heads against a wall.

Oddly enough, Harbinger is completely trustworthy.  He never once lies to Shepard.  You can trust that Harbinger will pursue his goal to harvest organics.  In all honesty, given every confrontation with a reaper in all 3 games, they never lied to anyone.

[2Shepards]

Sh*ts & Giggles

Lulz

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

But I could argue that in DA:O:  You must always pick a ruler, you must always pick a martyr, you must always fight the Dragon on the roof.

Like I said before, the scope is too big too.  DA:O was a single game with much fewer choices than the entire ME series.

An important part of player agency is the illusion of free will. In DA:O you do not feel shoehorned into these situations, but rather they come naturally as part as your role as the Warden.
You're always aware you must do things to unite the races against the Darkspawn. You know you must face down the Archdemon.
Conversely in ME3 you never expect that at the end, your only option will be to capitulate to the Reaper King.

Also, you tell me how Shepard could have stopped the cycle at the end of ME3 in any other way.  Go ahead.  Give me one other path that Shepard could have taken that would have guaranteed the end of the cycle and the survival of life.  Shepard isn't being an idiot, he/she is only doing what he/she has to do in order to guarantee survival.

The Catalyst is the self-proclaimed controller of the Reapers and appears to inhabit the Presidium tower.
Hence, contact Hackett and call in a dreadnought strike on the tower. Obliterate the Catalyst and send the Reapers into a frenzy of confusion, allowing a conventional victory.

That's just one possibility.

Does destryong the Citadel assure the end of the cycle?  No.  It may.  But the stakes are too high to maybe end the cycle.  Besides, we already know that the Reapers can and do act independant of the Catalyst.  The only way to exert any form of control over them (whether to destroy or control) is via the crucible and one of the options presented by the Catalyst.

That not true because the mechinations of the catalyst genocides has been carried out by the reapers from the catalysts instructions for generations and yes if the entire reaper force is in our galaxy or near our solar system then yes we can end the cycle without the crucible and having the person who controls the reapers to tell us what we have to do

Is not neccessary

Modifié par LiarasShield, 24 juin 2012 - 07:00 .

[thisisme8]

LiarasShield wrote...

Brings me to another thread topic I'm gonna post in awhile about why build harbinger up so much in me2 give him so many lines of dialogue make him feel like he may be the main antagonist against shepard in mass effect 3 since shepard and forces don't destroy him in 2 and then give him only the small role of blasting hammer during their run to the citadel beam U_u

Something else I don't understand.  Why does everyone believe that Harbinger is the leader of the reapers?  Sovereign played his role in ME1 as the Vanguard of the Reapers, Harbinger played his role in ME2 with the Collectors, why do people expect him to be the big boss in ME3?  At this point in the war, we're beyond a single reaper.  He's a small fry compared to what actually created the cycle, the Catalyst.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Brings me to another thread topic I'm gonna post in awhile about why build harbinger up so much in me2 give him so many lines of dialogue make him feel like he may be the main antagonist against shepard in mass effect 3 since shepard and forces don't destroy him in 2 and then give him only the small role of blasting hammer during their run to the citadel beam U_u

Something else I don't understand.  Why does everyone believe that Harbinger is the leader of the reapers?  Sovereign played his role in ME1 as the Vanguard of the Reapers, Harbinger played his role in ME2 with the Collectors, why do people expect him to be the big boss in ME3?  At this point in the war, we're beyond a single reaper.  He's a small fry compared to what actually created the cycle, the Catalyst.

Because he is the main reaper destroyer he is the most powerfulest among the reaper forces other then soveringn and all his interactions against shepard build up to him playing a bigger role in me3 and he is the one leading the reaper charge against earth

[JesseLee202]

thisisme8 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Brings me to another thread topic I'm gonna post in awhile about why build harbinger up so much in me2 give him so many lines of dialogue make him feel like he may be the main antagonist against shepard in mass effect 3 since shepard and forces don't destroy him in 2 and then give him only the small role of blasting hammer during their run to the citadel beam U_u

Something else I don't understand.  Why does everyone believe that Harbinger is the leader of the reapers?  Sovereign played his role in ME1 as the Vanguard of the Reapers, Harbinger played his role in ME2 with the Collectors, why do people expect him to be the big boss in ME3?  At this point in the war, we're beyond a single reaper.  He's a small fry compared to what actually created the cycle, the Catalyst.

Read Harbinger's codex entry in ME3 please.

[thisisme8]

LiarasShield wrote...

That not true because the mechinations of the catalyst genocides has been carried out by the reapers from the catalysts instructions for generations and yes if the entire reaper force is in our galaxy or near our solar system then yes we can end the cycle without the crucible and having the person who controls the reapers to tell us what we have to do

Is not neccessary

I don't entirely understand what you're saying here.  The Reapers act independantly to the Catalyst.  We know this because of ME1.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Does destryong the Citadel assure the end of the cycle?  No.  It may.  But the stakes are too high to maybe end the cycle.  Besides, we already know that the Reapers can and do act independant of the Catalyst.  The only way to exert any form of control over them (whether to destroy or control) is via the crucible and one of the options presented by the Catalyst.

If it's a choice between believing what the leader of the Reapers tells me, or eliminating the greatest enemy of the galaxy and giving my people a chance at victory on our own terms, I will take the latter. My Shepard would take the latter.

Yes, it's a risk. But I'd rather die fighting than live surrendering to an unrepentant mass murderer.

[The Angry One]

thisisme8 wrote...

Oddly enough, Harbinger is completely trustworthy.  He never once lies to Shepard.  You can trust that Harbinger will pursue his goal to harvest organics.  In all honesty, given every confrontation with a reaper in all 3 games, they never lied to anyone.

What Harbinger says is the truth from his point of view.
He thinks we're being ascended.
He thinks he is our genetic destiny.

We do not agree with a maniac simply because they are sincere. By the same token, the Catalyst may be sincere (though his sugar-coating of his actions and outright lies suggest otherwise) but why should we capitulate to it?
It's still wrong.

[LiarasShield]

we didn't need the crucible tactical strikes and thanix cannons can hurt and destroy the reapers like the dead or damaged reaper where we had to collect the reaper If and could rip a collector ship in half the crucible was not needed and no you can't really expect me to think that our only option was nodding our heads to the person who controls these monsters you can't honestly expect me to be ok with that or accept that

Modifié par LiarasShield, 24 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[thisisme8]

JesseLee202 wrote...

Read Harbinger's codex entry in ME3 please.

No, I get it.  But he played his part and he's still a reaper.  He may be the best and baddest reaper, but when confronted with the creator of the reapers, he's still just a reaper.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Read Harbinger's codex entry in ME3 please.

No, I get it.  But he played his part and he's still a reaper.  He may be the best and baddest reaper, but when confronted with the creator of the reapers, he's still just a reaper.

Because their was no need for a new main antagonist in the final 10 minutes to try to poorly explain the reapers motives when their motives never needed to be explained and since their is not hint to the catalyst existence in any of the games prior and since harbinger lead the reapers and was the most powerful reaper it was assumed that he would be the final boss to finally be able to beat the reapers or drive them off after their main leader is defeated

Modifié par LiarasShield, 24 juin 2012 - 07:10 .

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

If it's a choice between believing what the leader of the Reapers tells me, or eliminating the greatest enemy of the galaxy and giving my people a chance at victory on our own terms, I will take the latter. My Shepard would take the latter.

Yes, it's a risk. But I'd rather die fighting than live surrendering to an unrepentant mass murderer.

And that's fair.  Nobody wants the bad guy to win and if there is a chance to defeat him unconditionally, we should take it.  But not when you have the whole galaxy at risk.  Do you have kids?  A wife/husband?  Would you risk them in a situation where you can guarantee to save them?  Even Javik said that you can't win with your honor intact.

[JesseLee202]

thisisme8 wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Read Harbinger's codex entry in ME3 please.

No, I get it.  But he played his part and he's still a reaper.  He may be the best and baddest reaper, but when confronted with the creator of the reapers, he's still just a reaper.

See, if Harbinger gave you those three choices... what would you choose?

I just hated how they threw that kid in the last five minutes of a trilogy.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

If it's a choice between believing what the leader of the Reapers tells me, or eliminating the greatest enemy of the galaxy and giving my people a chance at victory on our own terms, I will take the latter. My Shepard would take the latter.

Yes, it's a risk. But I'd rather die fighting than live surrendering to an unrepentant mass murderer.

And that's fair.  Nobody wants the bad guy to win and if there is a chance to defeat him unconditionally, we should take it.  But not when you have the whole galaxy at risk.  Do you have kids?  A wife/husband?  Would you risk them in a situation where you can guarantee to save them?  Even Javik said that you can't win with your honor intact.

Well javik also explained that they couldn't beat the reapers because they were all the same or couldn't adapt our cycle is different because we can and we are different

[thisisme8]

The Angry One wrote...

What Harbinger says is the truth from his point of view.
He thinks we're being ascended.
He thinks he is our genetic destiny.

We do not agree with a maniac simply because they are sincere. By the same token, the Catalyst may be sincere (though his sugar-coating of his actions and outright lies suggest otherwise) but why should we capitulate to it?
It's still wrong.

Calling the Catalyst a maniac is projection.  It's an AI.  It simply followed the course of action it deemed most appropriate for the situation it was in millions of years ago.

Where are the Catalyst's outright lies?

[Mr.House]

thisisme8 wrote...

JesseLee202 wrote...

Read Harbinger's codex entry in ME3 please.

No, I get it.  But he played his part and he's still a reaper.  He may be the best and baddest reaper, but when confronted with the creator of the reapers, he's still just a reaper.

You are not confronted with the creator. You are confronted by something that controls the Reapers. We don't know what this thing is, only it's the leader of the Reapers and by that, the true villian that Shepard strikes a deal with.

[Ticonderoga117]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Because Mac Walter's decided that his artistic vision is more important than the players.

In storytelling, the writer's final vision is actually more important than the reader/player's.  If they wanted to come up with an ending to satisfy the players, they would have to create hundred's of different endings to satisfy all the different expectations from players around the world and that is not feasable.

Sorry it didn't go how you wanted it, but if it bugs you so much, then it's really just a matter of first world problems.  You'll be fine.

In a game based on player choice, player agency trumps the writer's "artistic statement".
The creators of Dragon Age understood this.

Just because you liked the Dragon Age ending doesn't change the fact that there was a limited amount of choice that was allowed.  At some point in the game, they had to begin to remove freedom from the player to allow the ending to come together.  Regardless of your choices, you still had to face the dragon on the roof.  Then you chose from a very limited set of options how you wanted to end the game.  Same with ME3.

The difference being, you were happy with DA, you may not be with ME3, but it's not like it presented you with tons more options at the end.

I'm going to leave this here.

[JesseLee202]

No lies, a fallacy.

[LiarasShield]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

What Harbinger says is the truth from his point of view.
He thinks we're being ascended.
He thinks he is our genetic destiny.

We do not agree with a maniac simply because they are sincere. By the same token, the Catalyst may be sincere (though his sugar-coating of his actions and outright lies suggest otherwise) but why should we capitulate to it?
It's still wrong.

Calling the Catalyst a maniac is projection.  It's an AI.  It simply followed the course of action it deemed most appropriate for the situation it was in millions of years ago.

Where are the Catalyst's outright lies?

Better question is is how can even expect the truth from him when you never saw the catalyst until the last 10 minutes and he controls the reapers the things that have been destroying everyone from the begining