4048 réponses à ce sujet

[GodSentinelOmega]

Mass effect 1 tagline: Many choices lie ahead, none of them easy

Mass effect 3 tagline as quoted from another thrad: Many choices lie ahead, none of them matter.

[katness]

I for one would have loved to have had 2 games to complete the saga. Bioware really did put themselves in a corner by saying Shepard's story would be a trilogy. Obviously, the story was too big to put in 3 games.

I would have rather ME3 start right after Arrival, the case could have been very short, and the errand running of this game (which is a friggin' rehash of both ME1 and ME2) could be used to actually PREPARE for the inevitable Reaper invasion.

I mean, seriously Shepard, you know that they're coming now, you know it's a matter of time, and you didn't try and bust out of being pinned down like you did in ME1 by running off with the Normandy?? I know that she would have been hunted, but the case should have been closed earlier, maybe. The whole story with the Arrival is actually where I feel the writing come apart...

Then, the beginning of the 3rd game could have been the discovery of the crucible, and the purpose of that device should have been something altogether different. More like, knowledge and blueprints passed down from reaper generation to reaper generation. That way, they are learning their history, purpose, weaknesses, how to make ourselves stronger, etc. Actually, the third game could have been us piecing together parts of the crucible blueprint. Each time they discover a part, they learn something new. Mind you, the blueprints are being put together from seeds put on many different planets to keep the reapers from discovering the whole project. That way if one seed is destroyed, the next generation can fill the gaps. As we're discovering parts of the crucible, we're still uniting forces and tying up loose threads just as we did in this game. While also dealing with our last game's comrade, TIM.

Then, the end of the third game could show the Reapers descending on Earth. The fourth game could have maybe been the actual war and showing us taking them down with the knowledge we learned from the crucible blueprints as well as the crucible itself. I would have liked to have seen the crucible be a very scientific and specific weapon built just for the Reapers (I'm not sure what I would have liked the purpose to be yet, as I would need more time to study).

I'm not a fan of the idea that we cannot win through conventional means, but I do understand that as we were in the third game, organics were pretty weak against them. But, I have to say that the Protheans gave them a run for their money. Their war took centuries and they were able to seed VIs as well as prohibit the Keepers from signaling the Citadel to become a Mass Relay. So, with that knowledge, I'm sure that many other generations learned things as well. With that knowledge from all generations, we could have made ourselves better. Made ourselves a very worthy adversary.

Anyways, these are just my random thoughts that I just thought of and for some reason wanted to post.... Sorry it's so long.  I may not know what I'm talking about either XD.

Modifié par katness, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:27 .

[3DandBeyond]

katness wrote...

I for one would have loved to have had 2 games to complete the saga. Bioware really did put themselves in a corner by saying Shepard's story would be a trilogy. Obviously, the story was too big to put in 3 games.

I would have rather ME3 start right after Arrival, the case could have been very short, and the errand running of this game (which is a friggin' rehash of both ME1 and ME2) could be used to actually PREPARE for the inevitable Reaper invasion.

I mean, seriously Shepard, you know that they're coming now, you know it's a matter of time, and you didn't try and bust out of being pinned down like you did in ME1 by running off with the Normandy?? I know that she would have been hunted, but the case should have been closed earlier, maybe. The whole story with the Arrival is actually where I feel the writing come apart...

Then, the beginning of the 3rd game could have been the discovery of the crucible, and the purpose of that device should have been something altogether different. More like, knowledge and blueprints passed down from reaper generation to reaper generation. That way, they are learning their history, purpose, weaknesses, how to make ourselves stronger, etc. Actually, the third game could have been us piecing together parts of the crucible blueprint. Each time they discover a part, they learn something new. Mind you, the blueprints are being put together from seeds put on many different planets to keep the reapers from discovering the whole project. That way if one seed is destroyed, the next generation can fill the gaps. As we're discovering parts of the crucible, we're still uniting forces and tying up loose threads just as we did in this game. While also dealing with our last game's comrade, TIM.

Then, the end of the third game could show the Reapers descending on Earth. The fourth game could have maybe been the actual war and showing us taking them down with the knowledge we learned from the crucible blueprints as well as the crucible itself. I would have liked to have seen the crucible be a very scientific and specific weapon built just for the Reapers (I'm not sure what I would have liked the purpose to be yet, as I would need more time to study).

I'm not a fan of the idea that we cannot win through conventional means, but I do understand that as we were in the third game, organics were pretty weak against them. But, I have to say that the Protheans gave them a run for their money. Their war took centuries and they were able to seed VIs as well as prohibit the Keepers from signaling the Citadel to become a Mass Relay. So, with that knowledge, I'm sure that many other generations learned things as well. With that knowledge from all generations, we could have made ourselves better. Made ourselves a very worthy adversary.

Anyways, these are just my random thoughts that I just thought of and for some reason wanted to post.... Sorry it's so long.  I may not know what I'm talking about either XD.

Actually, you make some very good points and good suggestions as well.  People do need to be reminded Liara says the Protheans nearly won and Javik says this cycle is "better".  Well, that means nothing.  Hackett dashes any hope right off the bat-just what a military leader would do.  "We can't win this conventionally."  No, not with that attitude we can't.  Shepard says a lot of the same before the tribunal.  In fact, Shepard's only "strategy" is to stand together.  Stand together and do what exactly?  Shepard says it's not about strategy and tactics, so at that point they all must be darn well praying for a MacGuffin, because I'm sure holding hands isn't going to do much at all.

They have things that could have been explored and could have been fun, but instead we got the hunt for assets and avoid the reapers garbage.  There's a lot of very interesting stuff in the codex that point to how other civilizations actually may have destroyed some reapers.  Not all, but some. 

And people in the present have destroyed some and have learned things.  There are beings with some reaper knowledge within them.  In fact the quantum entanglement communication may well have been derived from indoctrination which is said to use a form of quantum entanglement.  What if---what if real communication could be attempted with them through this signal or better yet what if that signal, using quantum entanglement could be used to piggyback some type of jamming signal or even an EMP.  Or better yet, why not try to use it to control them and send them crashing into the sun?  Of course you would need for them to have a key to decode anything sent to them, but it could have been explored and the key could have been uploaded to them via the geth or EDI maybe.

[3DandBeyond]

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

Whenever bioware scream artistic integrity or patronising journalists talk about videogames being a true artform and that companies should not pander to the fans as this sets a dangerous precedent etc.

All i can think of is: Art is IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

--------snipped, but a really good post.

Such wasted potential.

Apologies if whati've written comes across as very negative,

That's exactly right-an artist creates and does so through his vision.  He wants to convey a point, his point.  It is very hard to create one artistic work in a collaborative effort.  All involved have their own vision.  Therefore, when creating a story or game that is worked on by many hands, there is established lore-the art is set, the integrity of it defined. 

The creators of the effort will honor the lore to keep the integrity, to create the art.

If I paint a landscape with sailboats and a beach and the ocean and I have someone else paint with me (not likely, but for example), and it is my project and I decide I want the work painted as an abstract work and my helper starts painting it as realism, the art won't work for me.  It broke with the integrity I established.  Someone may come along and define the completed work as art, and then it is.

However, when writing a story if you set the tone, the theme, the plot, the manner, the characters, the antagonist, and the protagonist in order for integrity and art to exist at the end, someone must like reading it and you must follow the rules for the world you created.  There are franchises that have established lore and in order to write stories that exist within these franchises you need to follow the lore.  If you don't people will not consider what you've written to have artistic integrity.  And fans of these franchises are all about nitpicky details.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

katness wrote...

I for one would have loved to have had 2 games to complete the saga. Bioware really did put themselves in a corner by saying Shepard's story would be a trilogy. Obviously, the story was too big to put in 3 games.

I would have rather ME3 start right after Arrival, the case could have been very short, and the errand running of this game (which is a friggin' rehash of both ME1 and ME2) could be used to actually PREPARE for the inevitable Reaper invasion.

I mean, seriously Shepard, you know that they're coming now, you know it's a matter of time, and you didn't try and bust out of being pinned down like you did in ME1 by running off with the Normandy?? I know that she would have been hunted, but the case should have been closed earlier, maybe. The whole story with the Arrival is actually where I feel the writing come apart...

Then, the beginning of the 3rd game could have been the discovery of the crucible, and the purpose of that device should have been something altogether different. More like, knowledge and blueprints passed down from reaper generation to reaper generation. That way, they are learning their history, purpose, weaknesses, how to make ourselves stronger, etc. Actually, the third game could have been us piecing together parts of the crucible blueprint. Each time they discover a part, they learn something new. Mind you, the blueprints are being put together from seeds put on many different planets to keep the reapers from discovering the whole project. That way if one seed is destroyed, the next generation can fill the gaps. As we're discovering parts of the crucible, we're still uniting forces and tying up loose threads just as we did in this game. While also dealing with our last game's comrade, TIM.

Then, the end of the third game could show the Reapers descending on Earth. The fourth game could have maybe been the actual war and showing us taking them down with the knowledge we learned from the crucible blueprints as well as the crucible itself. I would have liked to have seen the crucible be a very scientific and specific weapon built just for the Reapers (I'm not sure what I would have liked the purpose to be yet, as I would need more time to study).

I'm not a fan of the idea that we cannot win through conventional means, but I do understand that as we were in the third game, organics were pretty weak against them. But, I have to say that the Protheans gave them a run for their money. Their war took centuries and they were able to seed VIs as well as prohibit the Keepers from signaling the Citadel to become a Mass Relay. So, with that knowledge, I'm sure that many other generations learned things as well. With that knowledge from all generations, we could have made ourselves better. Made ourselves a very worthy adversary.

Anyways, these are just my random thoughts that I just thought of and for some reason wanted to post.... Sorry it's so long.  I may not know what I'm talking about either XD.

Actually, you make some very good points and good suggestions as well.  People do need to be reminded Liara says the Protheans nearly won and Javik says this cycle is "better".  Well, that means nothing.  Hackett dashes any hope right off the bat-just what a military leader would do.  "We can't win this conventionally."  No, not with that attitude we can't.  Shepard says a lot of the same before the tribunal.  In fact, Shepard's only "strategy" is to stand together.  Stand together and do what exactly?  Shepard says it's not about strategy and tactics, so at that point they all must be darn well praying for a MacGuffin, because I'm sure holding hands isn't going to do much at all.

They have things that could have been explored and could have been fun, but instead we got the hunt for assets and avoid the reapers garbage.  There's a lot of very interesting stuff in the codex that point to how other civilizations actually may have destroyed some reapers.  Not all, but some. 

And people in the present have destroyed some and have learned things.  There are beings with some reaper knowledge within them.  In fact the quantum entanglement communication may well have been derived from indoctrination which is said to use a form of quantum entanglement.  What if---what if real communication could be attempted with them through this signal or better yet what if that signal, using quantum entanglement could be used to piggyback some type of jamming signal or even an EMP.  Or better yet, why not try to use it to control them and send them crashing into the sun?  Of course you would need for them to have a key to decode anything sent to them, but it could have been explored and the key could have been uploaded to them via the geth or EDI maybe.

that line by itself says we should have been able to have a conventional victory, but they ignored it and broke Hackett just so they can have their Crucible

[katness]

3D, you are so right. I forgot that Liara said that the Protheans almost won! I think that, sure, we can't beat them conventionally as of now, but let's make ourselves better and make a new line of our conventional. (If that makes sense).

The quantum entaglement communication could maybe have been used as the purpose for the crucible! I think your idea is brilliant! Now...to just make our own game.....

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Actually, you make some very good points and good suggestions as well.  People do need to be reminded Liara says the Protheans nearly won and Javik says this cycle is "better".

Is that Liara line from the DLC? I didn't get any such convo. And is Liara talking about building the Crucible?

[Zan51]

Works of Art.
To clarify my right to talk about this, my father was an art teacher and painter of note in Glasgow, and so was my younger brother.I  grew up doing art at junior school, as a Sunday Morning student in the Glasgow Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum Art classes, studied it all through high school, and attended an Art Education College for 2 years in Scotland. So I do know art and what makes art great. Me, I'm the writer, the only one in the family.

It is not the observer, it is the peers of the artist, and his successors that decide their work is great. It is how the artist broke the rules and created something new and innovative. Like the school of Pointilists,
]Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte by Seurat - http://www.webexhibi...rart/jatte.html )
or the school of the Impressionists like Degas. ( http://amitamurray.b...ss-dancers.html ) Different styles of art are called schools and each of those 2 as well as nearly all of the others through history, were hated at their inception by non-artists and many of their contemporaries for being too different, too out
there.

BUT, they are great paintings whether or not individuals who are not artists, or even other artists, like them. Their greatness transcends public opinion. Why? Because they were first to develop a new technique, they broke the mold, and their works stand the test of time.

How many of you know that Michelangelo was not a painter? He was a sculptor par excellence, but the only people who paid for art then was the church, and they wanted paintings of God and Jesus etc so he had to paint. However the Medici family was so wealthy that when they commissioned art for a church, they started asking him to put members of their family into the paintings as observers in religious scenes. From that gradually gaining acceptance and everyone else demanding it, Michelangelo was asked to carve tombs, and thus he began to get
commissions to do what he loved. The De Medici tomb is one of his finest. http://entertainment...ulptures19.htm 
I even saw the Pieta in the Vatican before some moron took a hammer to the Madonna's nose! I might not be religious, but I can love the sculpture. It glowed with an internal light and was made from one whole block of white
marble. Stunning.  http://www.wga.hu/fr...ta/1pieta1.html
Due to the Italian Renaissance, art was opened up to non-religious topics for the first time ever.

So great art is great for a good reason, not mutable public opinion. Pointillists painted using only dots of mainly primary colors, they didn't mix them, and if you look closely at any of their paintings you can see the tiny dots - pixel art in fact! And back in 1886, long before computers.

Impressionists wanted their art to be an impression of a first glimpse of the subject, all soft no edges, no harshness.  Again a new school or style of painting that caused an outcry at the time.

Now we come to Mass Effect 3. It was revolutionary. As a writer of science fiction and a life time gamer, I firmly believe that we are seeing the beginning of games as interactive stories that will engage an audience as never
before, as books and movies can't. Unfortunately with this ME3 ending that has left no one except perhaps some folk at EA/Bioware happy, the genre as a whole has taken a tumble. It may take some time before another game company has the vision and courage to try and do it right.

Artistic integrity be damned, Artistic integrity is following your vision to its logical conclusion and turning in a finished and polished product, not something lacking a cohesive ending, something that negates all that has gone before it and makes the participants ask "Why the hell did I bother?" It gives you a product you can enjoy again and again, like a good book, a good movie, a good picture, and a good game.  I rest my case.

Modifié par Zan51, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:15 .

[KEMKA]

3DandBeyond wrote...

GodSentinelOmega wrote...

Whenever bioware scream artistic integrity or patronising journalists talk about videogames being a true artform and that companies should not pander to the fans as this sets a dangerous precedent etc.

All i can think of is: Art is IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

--------snipped, but a really good post.

Such wasted potential.

Apologies if whati've written comes across as very negative,

However, when writing a story if you set the tone, the theme, the plot, the manner, the characters, the antagonist, and the protagonist in order for integrity and art to exist at the end, someone must like reading it and you must follow the rules for the world you created.  There are franchises that have established lore and in order to write stories that exist within these franchises you need to follow the lore.  If you don't people will not consider what you've written to have artistic integrity.  And fans of these franchises are all about nitpicky details.

Zan51 wrote...

Artistic integrity be damned, Artistic
integrity is following your vision to its logical conclusion and turning
in a finished and polished product, not something lacking a cohesive
ending, something that negates all that has gone before it and makes the
participants ask "Why the hell did I bother?" It gives you a product
you can enjoy again and again, like a good book, a good movie, a good
picture, and a good game.  I rest my case.

I don't feel the tone/theme etc from the last game has changed though? I don't think they haven't followed the lore at all. From what I understood of the first two games the protheans were far more advanced than us right? And I think the 'almost won' was because they almost managed to deploy the crucible, but by that time their civilisation has been decimated, kind of like the position that 'our' galaxy was in, in fact worse as he points out in the last chance you get to talk with him. Also, Javiks quote about this cycle being 'better' - I believe he was talking about political philosophy? A lot of conversations with Javik were about how the Protheans ruled by subjugating all other races, not sharing power, and he was suprised at how it worked in our cycle, that's what I thought he meant.

I'll admit the star child is a bit weird, but they needed to explain the reapers, their motives etc at least I was expecting them to!

I also don't understand how people could think we ever had a chance of beating the Reapers conventionally, characters throughout the game are constantly saying things like - it took the full force of the citadel/races to kill Sovereign (thats the reaper from me1 right?), how to we fight a whole army of them. And it takes a whole fleet to destroy one reaper! Or a giant worm. When the Krogans came aboard and helped on Palavan, garrus said they helped, but it wasn't enough. I don't understand where people are getting this idea from that we could do it alone

[riesenwiesel]

-k-a-t-e- wrote...

I also don't understand how people could think we ever had a chance of beating the Reapers conventionally, characters throughout the game are constantly saying things like - it took the full force of the citadel/races to kill Sovereign (thats the reaper from me1 right?), how to we fight a whole army of them. And it takes a whole fleet to destroy one reaper! Or a giant worm. When the Krogans came aboard and helped on Palavan, garrus said they helped, but it wasn't enough. I don't understand where people are getting this idea from that we could do it alone

Until the discovery of the Crucible the whole game is based on a possible conventional victory. So without the chance of a conventional victory, both ME1 and ME2 would have been completely pointless. 

[KEMKA]

riesenwiesel wrote...

-k-a-t-e- wrote...

I also don't understand how people could think we ever had a chance of beating the Reapers conventionally, characters throughout the game are constantly saying things like - it took the full force of the citadel/races to kill Sovereign (thats the reaper from me1 right?), how to we fight a whole army of them. And it takes a whole fleet to destroy one reaper! Or a giant worm. When the Krogans came aboard and helped on Palavan, garrus said they helped, but it wasn't enough. I don't understand where people are getting this idea from that we could do it alone

Until the discovery of the Crucible the whole game is based on a possible conventional victory. So without the chance of a conventional victory, both ME1 and ME2 would have been completely pointless. 

I have to disagree, at least I never thought this. I found myself feeling pretty worried after me1 and throughout me2, how were we supposed to beat the reapers? We only just managed to defeat 1 in the first game, and in the second game we were facing the collectors not the reapers, and again it was a close call - we had the 'best in the galaxy' on our team and were using the most advanced ship around. I think the first two games were drumming the message home that we were seriously out gunned by the reapers. They were so much more advanced than us and had continued their cycle of wiping out life undefeated until now. I don't see how it diminishes the first two games, the first one was to introduce is to the idea of the reapers and the second... well, I generally don't see the point of the second game if I'm honest, conventional victory or not. I enjoyed it and liked the story and setting etc but I was a bit confused about where Harbinger's task was in the whole Reaper 'plan of attack' or whatever

[circe]

I think if properly written, conventional victory could have been possible in a believable manner, possibly even through use of the Crucible. But I will agree as the game stands, the writers seemed pretty determined to make the Crucible and Starchid's pick a door choices the only way to win. That's regrettable. A conventional victory (I cannot stress enough how it needs to be properly done) would have left us with a "Holy #$%@, we pulled it off!" kind of moment. It would have been triumphant, fulfilling, while at the same time entirely bittersweet because let's face it, it's a war and lots of people are gonna die. I would have liked the possibility to win via a conventional victory through the Refuse choice and high EMS, but yes, I might not have fully believed it in the currents ending setting. Then again, I may have mentioned this elsewhere, if the writers can have a deranged AI turn everyone into cyborgs, or allow Shepard to become the next Starchild, I think they could have found a way to pull a conventional victory out of their asses.

[dbt-kenny]

Conventional victory was always going to not in the game which is a big pity. Yes like how could they do well for one how about the Crucible stop the reaper from been able to control people’s minds.
Even without the Crucible we could of used the Rachni swarm on mass the help. Many be the queen know of new system full of Rachni.

Or even better the Crucible was a relay to new galaxy full off ass kicking monsters. That had kicked the Reapers out in the pasted. It be I nice twist to the end I bet.

[Captain McBuck]

I know in the grand Scheme of things over the ending debacle it seems like a small detail...but my Shep romanced Kelly Chambers and I was curious what happened to her, I kept her alive during Udina's coup; and then forgave her for reporting to TImmy, and up to Priority: Cerberus HQ she was alive and well so my question is ...did she die when the reapers took the citidel? or did she make it out in one of the wards when they blew apart from the main ring since my Sheps Favourite colour is red?

[Asguardwolf]

The 4 extended endings were alright, almost like the ones that came with the game just a few more details and pretty pictures. Played ME1 about 10 times, Played ME2 about 30 times everytime a new DLC came out, Played ME3 about 5 times so far. I enjoyed the series the end kinda sucked cause what are we gonna do now for DLC or are all DLCs for the game just gonna be multiplayer stuff no more single player stuff.

[riesenwiesel]

-k-a-t-e- wrote...

riesenwiesel wrote...

Until the discovery of the Crucible the whole game is based on a possible conventional victory. So without the chance of a conventional victory, both ME1 and ME2 would have been completely pointless. 

I have to disagree, at least I never thought this. I found myself feeling pretty worried after me1 and throughout me2, how were we supposed to beat the reapers? 

Well, as a player I had my doubts, too.
But the ME trilogy is basically about Shepard, about people believing in Shepard.
First "only" his crew (see: dialogue with admiral Hackett about the suicide mission) and later nearly the whole galaxy believes in him and his ideals.
And Shepard believes in conventional victory at least until the very end of ME2 (see: The Arrival DLC, last dialogue with Harbinger).
So for me the perspective of conventional victory against the reapers is the major motivation in the series, at least up to the discovery of the crucible. 

[sdinc009]

@Zan51
I'm not quite clear on your point. Your post seems to (at the same time) approve of the "artistic integrity" of ME 3 and then denouce it. Your examples and the majority of your post are entirely accurate and formed with sound logic with proof properly cited. However, there is a leap being made there. The art being referenced is a different medium than the one ME 3 exists within. Also, in the past when sculptures or painters were hired they were essentially hired to perform a job ie: they were contractors. When we purchase a game we are not hiring the people we are purchasing a product. There is a vaste difference between how paintings are considered art and how video games, or movies, or literature is considered art. However, I consider this entirely a moot point and my reason is in a ealier post of mine that I will repost regarding the phrase "artistic integrity":

There's always been 1 thing about this whole debacle that's really been like a thorn lodged in the rage center of my brain and that's the use of the phrase "artistic integrity". This is the defense being used so PR reps, reviews, and all sorts shout to those who dislike the ending, "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity" "artistic integrity"!! But wait, is it really? Here's the definition of integrity:

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy,[1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

The word "integrity" stems from the Latin adjective integer (whole, complete).[2] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

A value system's abstraction depth and range of applicable interaction may also function as significant factors in identifying integrity due to their congruence or lack of congruence with observation. A value system may evolve over time[3] while retaining integrity if those who espouse the values account for and resolve inconsistencies

So where's the integrity here? A staggering 91% of players can all agree on where ME 3 falls apart. If integrity is basically identified as a wholeness, completeness, then isn't the fact that the ending of ME 3 breaks away from the story structure created through 2.99 games the very opposite of integrity? It doesn't adhere to the artistic integrity the series has created and have up until that point done so well. One could say that it is, in fact, the total lack of artistic integrity that has us all so outraged. So I'm going to say right now that I'm taking this phrase "artistic integrity" back. I'm sick and tired of the meaning of words and phrases being changed for convenience. You do not have "artistic integrity" when you change the artistic vision in the final 10 minutes what you have is "artistic transition". Sorry this was so long, but that phrase and it's misuse has been really pissing me off for about 4 months now.

[3DandBeyond]

-k-a-t-e- wrote...

snipped----

I'll admit the star child is a bit weird, but they needed to explain the reapers, their motives etc at least I was expecting them to!

I also don't understand how people could think we ever had a chance of beating the Reapers conventionally, characters throughout the game are constantly saying things like - it took the full force of the citadel/races to kill Sovereign (thats the reaper from me1 right?), how to we fight a whole army of them. And it takes a whole fleet to destroy one reaper! Or a giant worm. When the Krogans came aboard and helped on Palavan, garrus said they helped, but it wasn't enough. I don't understand where people are getting this idea from that we could do it alone

No we never needed to understand their motives at all.  But as to lore, much of why they were doing what they were doing had already been explained.  Bioware abandoned it all in order to achieve some type of intellectual focus.

Consider the movie Jaws (large shark killing people).  The goal: kill that shark. 
Condider ME (large beings killing people).  The goal: kill those beings.

In neither story is it ever essential to understand the foe's origins or motives.  Sovereign basically states this-he says that people will cease to be because the reapers demand it.  They consider themselves unknowable gods.  People exist because they allow it and will die because they demand it.  That's pretty clear.

In neither example is actually getting to know the enemy a real tour de force.  It isn't a running subtext where they are constantly trying to find out where they came from and why-such a thing would have to be continually referenced to even matter.

Read the codex, listen to things EDI says and you might see the reapers motives were actually more animalistic initially.  Nutrition and reproduction.  They lay dormant (hibernate) and vulnerable beyond the edge of the galaxy and then come out every 50k years to make new reapers.  They need the essence of advanced organic life to fuel this process-perhaps like zombies they need braaaaaains.  They seed the galaxy with tech that advances organic life along a particular path and a particular timeline.  Where is the corollary in the game?   Fish.  Yeah it's funny as hell.  Fish and other food animals are fattened up and harvested when the time is right.  The reapers do not harvest lesser species.

Sovereign says the reapers are unknowable-so he doesn't think people would understand the reapers and what they are doing.  Well, I don't think a cow would undertand why it's being made into steak either.

As far as the protheans being more advanced-in some ways, maybe.  However, Javik states (paraphrasing things) that this cycle is stronger due to many things, one being that people are working together.  The protheans were tyrrannical and slavers.  They didn't allow for independent thought.  His last discussion with Shepard indicates even he has hope for this cycle.

No one ever said humans could do it alone, if that's what you are thinking they meant.  On the contrary, it's the idea of people coming together as never before, united for a real purpose that gives the galaxy a chance.  But the opportunity is never seized.  2 missiles took down a reaper in London.  One cain destroyed the Hades Cannon.  Reapers have vulnerabilities such as their shields are weaker when on a planet.  And they employ kinetic barriers which are resistant to projectiles but not temperature, toxins, and radiation.

Conventional warfare doesn't mean you run up and shoot at a reaper and hope to destroy it.  What was done on Hoth in The Return of the Jedi (yes a different story but an example of trying different things)?  They used tethers to trip At Ats.  Unconventional/conventional.  But we never see anyone actually try to do anything.  Instead all we see and hear about is the crucible, a big unknown.  This is total BS.

In WWII, you didn't see people stop working to wage many different kinds of fights simply because others were working on building nukes.  In fact, one of the greatest things ever done during the war was the use of the ruse and misinformation.  That's not conventional.  Let the foe think all your energy and focus is on fighting in one place while you carry one covert ops elsewhere or you build up other types of resistance somewhere else.  That's one thing.  Electronics, hacking, tech, the geth, EDI, the Rachni (they were around at the time of the Protheans)-what do they all know, and what could they contribute. 

Eezo - why not a weapon, a real weapon based on it.  I think the crucible was actually going to be based on this.  Conrad Verner gives dark energy info to Shepard in ME3.  Eezo releases dark energy and when subjected to an electrical current it can raise or lower the mass of an object within the mass effect field created.  A reaper vulnerabilty is that when their mass has been lowered (as in when they are on a planet) their barriers are weak.  Lower their mass, weaken them and then shoot.

[3DandBeyond]

Captain McBuck wrote...

I know in the grand Scheme of things over the ending debacle it seems like a small detail...but my Shep romanced Kelly Chambers and I was curious what happened to her, I kept her alive during Udina's coup; and then forgave her for reporting to TImmy, and up to Priority: Cerberus HQ she was alive and well so my question is ...did she die when the reapers took the citidel? or did she make it out in one of the wards when they blew apart from the main ring since my Sheps Favourite colour is red?

Well, she wasn't my favorite but she fed my fish and was so happy to see me in ME3 so I too did care what happened to her.  I cared about Bailey and Aria and Kolyat, too.  I think that's what's so incredibly stupid about inserting the kid in the game at all (real or see through).  I and so My Shepard, didn't need any new person to put a face on what was at stake-like Mordin had his nephew.  My Shepard didn't lack for faces that mattered far more than some kid, "you can't help me."  What kid would say that?  "Where's my mom?"  "I'm scared."  "Can you help me?"  More normal.  I disliked him totally.  But I loved Bailey and all the rest.  What about Aethyta?  The list is almost endless.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Captain McBuck wrote...

I know in the grand Scheme of things over the ending debacle it seems like a small detail...but my Shep romanced Kelly Chambers and I was curious what happened to her, I kept her alive during Udina's coup; and then forgave her for reporting to TImmy, and up to Priority: Cerberus HQ she was alive and well so my question is ...did she die when the reapers took the citidel? or did she make it out in one of the wards when they blew apart from the main ring since my Sheps Favourite colour is red?

Well, she wasn't my favorite but she fed my fish and was so happy to see me in ME3 so I too did care what happened to her.  I cared about Bailey and Aria and Kolyat, too.  I think that's what's so incredibly stupid about inserting the kid in the game at all (real or see through).  I and so My Shepard, didn't need any new person to put a face on what was at stake-like Mordin had his nephew.  My Shepard didn't lack for faces that mattered far more than some kid, "you can't help me."  What kid would say that?  "Where's my mom?"  "I'm scared."  "Can you help me?"  More normal.  I disliked him totally.  But I loved Bailey and all the rest.  What about Aethyta?  The list is almost endless.

I actually liked Samantha Traynor better than Kelly, because Kelly felt like one of those people who was there just to be there lol

I am looking forward to the Omega DLC, and hoping they do a MP of Omega too

[sdinc009]

The definition of conventional warfare:

"Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, and not with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics"

So, even though it's been stated that victory is not possible through conventional means that does not mean victory is impossible. Nuclear weapons are cited as unconventional and according to the codex the Cain heavy weapon is a small nuclear boom stick. And, as I recall didn't it take one shot with it to take down a Destroyer class Reaper in London. Or how about using the Reaper signal plot from the Sanctuary mission to weaken there defenses in order for the Victory fleet to gain the upper hand. That's unconventional!!

[3DandBeyond]

sdinc009 wrote...

The definition of conventional warfare:

"Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is normally fought using conventional weapons, and not with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics"

So, even though it's been stated that victory is not possible through conventional means that does not mean victory is impossible. Nuclear weapons are cited as unconventional and according to the codex the Cain heavy weapon is a small nuclear boom stick. And, as I recall didn't it take one shot with it to take down a Destroyer class Reaper in London. Or how about using the Reaper signal plot from the Sanctuary mission to weaken there defenses in order for the Victory fleet to gain the upper hand. That's unconventional!!

The cain took down a Hades Cannon I know in London.  But this is the point unconventional means.  I think it's clear repeatedly running up and shooting at reapers doesn't work.  But they are not impervious to radiation and that's why the cain worked.  And when their mass is reduced they are weaker.  That's why the 2 missile worked.

I think it was the original intent for the Crucible to be a dark energy weapon that manipulated the mass of objects within a mass energy field and thus would weaken reapers leaving them open to all kinds of attacks.  That's what Conrad's story was about.

[3DandBeyond]

circe wrote...

I think if properly written, conventional victory could have been possible in a believable manner, possibly even through use of the Crucible. But I will agree as the game stands, the writers seemed pretty determined to make the Crucible and Starchid's pick a door choices the only way to win. That's regrettable. A conventional victory (I cannot stress enough how it needs to be properly done) would have left us with a "Holy #$%@, we pulled it off!" kind of moment. It would have been triumphant, fulfilling, while at the same time entirely bittersweet because let's face it, it's a war and lots of people are gonna die. I would have liked the possibility to win via a conventional victory through the Refuse choice and high EMS, but yes, I might not have fully believed it in the currents ending setting. Then again, I may have mentioned this elsewhere, if the writers can have a deranged AI turn everyone into cyborgs, or allow Shepard to become the next Starchild, I think they could have found a way to pull a conventional victory out of their asses.

I agree.  I've seen so many threads where someone writes, "a conventional victory makes no sense.  It's not possible".  And they never have a response to what is staring them in the face.  That's not possible, but creating a Shepard reaper god with a beam, or creating new DNA using a scalpel-like beam, or destroying all synthetic life using that same beam is and it makes more sense?

I think people get stuck on 2 points.  They've been told it's not possible so it's not possible.  What they need to know is it is only as impossible as the writers choose to make it.  They decided to not have to write that story where the impossible merely becomes the extremely difficult.  Instead they pulled a major MacGuffin out of their behinds and made people think that made more sense than just plain trying.  ME wasn't about relying on magic to solve the major problems.  It was about people doing the impossible

The second point people get stuck on is "conventional" victory.  Its strict defined use would be impossible on some levels, but not the implied imaginative use of it.  That's a failure of good story telling using imagination.

People were spoon fed a scenario that relied on a MacGuffin and not on what has been a core principle in the stories.  Within ME people always did the impossible.  That was what Shepard was there for-to make the impossible possible.  With the introduction of the crucible there is less need for Shepard.

[Glebuych19941]

My opinion about EC: I cannot found differences in pictures at Control and Destroy,and I don't understand:who rebuild relays when Destroy happens.But I satisfacted other.And other,Who remembered a First-Born from Jericho when saw a Catalyst?

[sagevallant]

katness wrote...

I for one would have loved to have had 2 games to complete the saga. Bioware really did put themselves in a corner by saying Shepard's story would be a trilogy. Obviously, the story was too big to put in 3 games.

They could have made ME2 have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the events of ME1. Just saying. Rather than being one long game in which they introduce a cast that may or may not be in ME3. The only plot relevent events of ME2 was the Arrival DLC.


The core problem with ME3 is the Catalyst, imo. What it is, what it does, how it is introduced. It's this thing, we don't know who made it or what it does, but we've decided that due to it having a massive power source it is some kind of weapon and we're going to make it. Still without finding out what it does. While Shep goes around doing his usual thing. With frequent trips to the Citadel in order to have chats with the people ALREADY ON HIS SHIP.

We are introduced to the plans straight away, right after leaving earth. Knowing about the mysterious device that is conveniently going to save the universe doesn't make it any less of a Deus Ex Machina when it happens. It still saves the day and we had roughly nothing to do with it, outside of shunting laborers their way. It was never in danger, we never had to go screaming to the rescue to protect it from harm, we never saw it until the very end. The entire game plays more like mission packs than a cohesive narrative.

The writers are unable to explain what it is, how it works, or where it came from. Diving headlong into a beam of energy results in all life in the universe being assimilated. Grabbing electric handlebars creates the OverShep to govern the Reapers. Shooting essential machinery causes the Reapers to die. That's an unfriendly interface if ever there was one.

If the Citadel had triggered with Shep and Anderson slumped together dead as the Catalyst fired, I would be singing the praises of this game. Screw the final choice and the Plot Device present to explain it. I'd rather not know where the Reapers came from if this WEAK, CLICHE HANDWAVE is all there is. I don't want the choice of which color the explosions are, thanks. If there's no choice allowed then don't throw a fake choice in my face. It only serves to further infuriate me. Just cut, fade to black.

The EC fixed none of this.