11 réponses à ce sujet

[Oransel]

According to the lore. I'd say yes, it is possible, though very unlikely. 9000 EMS should be a victory with heavy casualties, in my opinion.

To those who say that conventional victory is impossible because Hackett said it. Hackett is incompetent old moron who lost 2  fleets in relatively avoidable situation. 

To those who say that conventional victory is impossible because it violates ME lore. Guess what? ME3 have already violated lore by turning Reapers into retarded squids who can be shot from roof with Cain gun. 

What I wanted to see in the first place: Shepard and Anderson up there near control panel, sharing last words, Citadel opens, Crucible fires - what happens next is up to your EMS. Sure it would still be Deus Ex Machina (Crucible) and weak writing, but that was alright way to finish the series with noone complaining. 

Starkid violated the lore, literally raped the plot to the point where now everything is possible. Synthesis is exactly as impossible as conventional victory, yet it happens.

Modifié par Oransel, 27 juin 2012 - 07:52 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

[Allan Schumacher]

VII Revenant wrote...

In terms of gameplay, a high enough EMS rating and a visual deployment, command, or assist with those resources, alongside a compliment of intense player-driven choices would have been a great way to make conventional victory achievable with an extreme cost to player resources.

As players do not have such a degree of control over the battlefield situation at the game's end, the current decision to deny players conventional victory with the Reject Ending is acceptable. I believe much of the disappointment stems from it not being possible and the seeming uselessness of our gathered resources at game's end. By having an ending in which conventional victory is achievable, you would give tangible value to those resources instead of merely assigning them a numerical value. My Krogan allies, for example, would mean more than a slight bump in EMS, and I, as Shepard, would value their sacrifice and commitment greater.

That's an interesting response.  Thanks!

I do agree that the EMS value isn't as clear as it maybe could be.  Especially in terms of what it fed into.  Based on how the game uses the EMS, it definitely ties more into the Crucible's capability rather than the military capability of the fleet itself.  I love naval warfare and associated the EMS with military might as well, and it didn't become apparent to me until I read up on what the EMS affected in the game.


I just asked because in reality, the ME team "could" have done literally anything they wanted.  It could have been more fleshed out.  I know Epler made a comment that he would have liked to see the fleets go down in a blaze of glory too, though as a CinDesigner himself he mentioned he can understand why there might have been limitations in place in terms of size as well as time and money.


What about if we take into account scarcity and assume that there was fixed time/budget and that all the resources were spent.  What would people be willing to take away from the other endings in order to improve the refuse one?

[Allan Schumacher]

httinks2006 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

To answer the op question yes , to answer Allans question no .
current information is suppose to be correct and updated. go to your war room on the Normandy the war assests I collected by Mass Effect ingame  assestments stated I have an even chance that is 50/50 not overwhelming as so many people on these forums are arguing agaisnt a victory without the crucible being possible . no one knew what it did, those are my odds without it .
you can't have your cake and eat it to .

A 50/50 chance doesn't guarantee victory by any means though.  Unless you're hoping for actual random variation (sometimes saying no results in winning, other times it results in dying - note: This starts to become a nightmare to work with...), a 50/50 chance means that it's entirely acceptable that winning by conventional means doesn't work.  It was a coin flip, and you're only getting one toss.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'll admit I haven't been through this whole argument and am just responding to this specific statement, but I'd just like to point out the obvious that Mass Effect is story driven and these 50/50 stats don't really mean much to what the writers decide to do. Mass Effect 2 was a "suicide mission" yet with a little due dilligence, no one died, the ship was relatively undamaged, and you came away from the whole thing smelling rosy fresh (which I was happy with mind you).

I recognize that conventional victory is supposed to seem unobtainable to rationalize creation of the Crucible in the first place, but it would be a fascinating and uplifting twist (one that matched the themes of unification and perserverance mind you) for Shepard to realize the Crucible was a trap or a bad option and rally the fleet that he'd gathered to build and defend it to actually fight back and beat the Reapers. It matches the whole "against all odds" thing Bioware's been running with since the first game, and gives fans the moral dilemna of taking an easy out with stipulations in the form of the Catalyst, or sending brave soldiers to die in the hopes of conventional victory.

Just saying, from a storytelling perspective, arguing this on statistics isn't really the way to go.

That fair. It works both ways too. Simply because an assessment was made in game doesn't mean it's going to play out that way.

As a point of interest I actually was disappointed that the Suicide Mission could be completed without any loss of life. I was hoping for a series of Virmire like sequences.

[Allan Schumacher]

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply to stuff on here. It's always fascinating to get an insider's take on these things. Just out of curiousity, do you happen to know if the team put any thought into promoting pre-ending DLC with extensions to the Rejection ending, i.e. using war assets obtained in dlc to boost EMS high enough for a conventional victory ending? I know there aren't plans to do anything else with the ending, I just wondered if they'd considered it, especially considering all the talk of Omega and Leviathan going around. EDIT: Of course, you working on DA and not ME, that was probably a dumb question

I can sort of answer the question though, just from a technical point of view with a bit of a personal twist.

There's nothing stopping future DLCs from contributing additional EMS score. But there are cert concerns about having DLC require other DLC in order to be achieved (Fallout New Vegas has an issue were some weapons from one DLC cannot be affected by perks from another DLC because that type of dependency isn't allowed), so it'd be challenging to do and I doubt it'd open up additional endings (I might be wrong).

I personally would hesitate as there was already a lot of frustration about EMS requiring some additional type of playthrough in order to get the "ideal" destroy ending. If it were me I think I'd probably hesitate to have EMS scores that require DLC and whatnot to expand upon the ending. I think it's something the fanbase might not appreciate at this juncture haha.

[Allan Schumacher]

httinks2006 wrote...

Trying to not sound like a jerk and I know they are different departments of the studio but if the resources of multiplayer was left off of a single player rpg then you could use that  time and effort into the refuse ending .
even for that matter if they were never included maybe this all would happened in the first place.

The problem with this is that it makes an assumption that the allocation of resources is specified, and then we decide what to do with the game.

If the resources of the multiplayer were left off, they probably wouldn't have been allocated in the first place.  When games have additional scopes added such as multiplayer, they aren't necessarily being taken from the same size pie that there would have been otherwise.


I don't know the details, but removing the multiplayer from any game does NOT mean that the single player experience necessarily gets more money and resources.

Scope creep is a very serious concern and it's when that pie ends up getting divided up in ways that leave areas short changed.  Early in the project, however, additional financing can be obtained more easily especially if there is sound justification for doing it.  This doesn't just apply to multiplayer components either.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lwyn wrote...

The DLC limitations are a fair point, but I'd then ask: Can the refuse ending (and possible variations therein) be included in any future DLC that might affect it? To my knowledge it wasn't very long, was very light on cutscenes and those were done exclusively in-engine. Feasible?

If I sound desperate, it's because I am. I could not and still can't accept the notion that conventional victory is not realistic but synthesis is.

On the second point, I feel that the endings after the EC are complete and adequate enough to warrant putting extras in paid DLC. As a side point if the rumored Leviathan DLC ends up giving me +100 EMS and nothing else, I'll be very disappointed.

Actually you know what, given that there seems to be some sort of Leviathan DLC type stuff, maybe it is more plausible than I originally thought?

It's probably best no one take anything I say on the topic to heart in retrospcet

[Allan Schumacher]

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

[Allan Schumacher]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

Science Daily: Fire Ants Can Attack Humans In Homes Or Health Care Facilities.

The ants won.

Sounds like a hit and run attack.  Those worked for humanity from time to time against the Reapers too

[Allan Schumacher]

Qeylis wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Could this invincible force be defeated? Of course. The conditions have to be right, but any invincible force can be defeated. Germanic tribes beat the Roman Empire. Greeks (Alexander) beat Persia. The World beat the technologically superior Germans and their allies. America beat the worlds greatest power, England (or Britain). Afghanistan beat the USSR. North Vietnam beat the USA.

Have there been any recent occurrences of ants defeating human beings though? Particularly if those human beings have made it a goal to destroy the ants?

I don't think your analogies work because the level of technological superiority is not on the same level as the Reapers vs. society. (I actually disagree with some of the claims you have about who had technological superiority).

Science Daily: Fire Ants Can Attack Humans In Homes Or Health Care Facilities.

The ants won.

So, I guess the answer is yes, ants have beaten humans.  And that isn't the first time.  Would you like to go smaller?  How about Bacteria?  They have beaten humans too.

I understand this isn't the place for a historical debate, but if you are referring to the Germans, they had better technology, we (all the Allies) had numbers.  Kind of like the Reaper war, just a bit more balanced.  If you are referring to any of the others, I didn't say better tech, just an inferior force.  

1. The Reapers lost the element of surprise.  From what we can tell, that has never happened before.

2. The Reaper Command and Control was discovered.  We know this is the first cycle to find it (unless Star Child is a liar.)

3. We had the largest, most diverse fleet ever assembled in this galaxy. (We know this because the sneak attack did not work.)

4. We had Reaper level intelligences on our side in the form of Geth.  It is unlikely that any other Cycle had that, as they would have been wiped out prior to gaining Reaper code, or their version of the Geth would have stayed indoctrinated.

So, lots of ants (3).  Ants that know how to kill humans (2).  Humans that thought the ants would just lie down and die(1).  And, some really, really smart, fast annoying ants (4).  Not saying they win automatically, but of course its possible.

The analogy was apparently lost.  That ants have been able to kill humans actually lines up quite well, since humans were able to kill reapers.  If humanity made it its goal to systematically exterminate all ants, how much of a fight do you think the ants would be able to put up?

The premise that the Reapers cannot be defeated conventionally does not mean that the Reapers are not capable of taking losses.

[Allan Schumacher]

infraredman wrote...

I think the EMS should have at least had influenced this ending. Low EMS = liara's probe talking. High EMS = another result. Perhaps shepard at least gets word out to destroy the citadel (and therefore destroy the catalyst that controls the reapers). What happens to the reapers if the catalyst is destroyed? Do they continue the cycle without it's influence? It doesn't have to be a positive outcome --- though considering tragedies and comedies are as old as ancient greece I so no reason why a happy ending is any more "artistic" than a sad ending --- both are conventional. I am not so sure why BW is so insistant that one option couldn't be "happy" it wouldnt' degrade anything....but even so an ems defeat/tragedy coudl be possible to. Hundreds of years of war and perhaps humanity and the races all die, but maybe also there are no reapers for the next cycle to have to fight. So the VI talking wouldn't say "we tried, but failed" they would say "we bought your future with our lives".

I think it's a fair reason for disappointment to feel that the refuse ending isn't as fleshed out or depicted in the way that you would have liked.

Having a good talk with wysterra about it, obviously it's possible for the current implementation to be perceived as a slight, without actually wanting it to be a way to win the war.  That sucks.  Wish that hadn't happened for him.

I do think it's better to still have the choice, but if someone feels it's not done well enough and it would have been better to do not add it (and even add to the other endings), that's fair and a fair criticism to boot.