531 réponses à ce sujet

[richard_rider]

Zero132132 wrote...

Grifman1 wrote...

richard_rider wrote...

How can people call a "conventional" victory ridiculous, impossible, childish, unattainable, etc, but can so easily accept the Deus Ex Machina?

Calling a conventional victory impossible does not mean that I accept Star Child either.  Rejecting one does not mean that accepting the other is required.

The Catalyst isn't a star or a child, but he isn't a deus ex machina either. A Deus ex Machina is some plot contrivance that resolves the entire plot with amazing ease. The Crucible does this. The Catalyst doesn't resolve anything, and actually poses a new problem. So accepting the Crucible is accepting a DEM. Without it, the war isn't winnable if you don't think conventional warfare can bring down the Reapers.

I accepted the Crucible, Catalyst, and that the Reapers aren't defeatable by conventional means, so it doesn't bother me much, but still...

Isn't that exactly what it does, though. "Here are 3 options to stopping the reapers, pick one." It resolves the main plot of stopping the reapers easy, with a short walk, not a long drawn out battle, not facing harbinger and defeating him, just take a short stroll, and you "win". That is the most basic definition of DEM. Whether it's the catalyst, or the crucible is almost irrelevant, without one you can't have the other.

At the end of the day, we're shoehorned into space magic, whether we like it or not. That's what BW wanted, that's what they got, some people can accept it, but I can't, for 3 games, I was shooting guns, ducking for cover, and upgrading my equipment in order not the get my head blown off, but all of a sudden, nothing else matter except the catalyst/cruicible combo, nothing can stop the reapers, noone can save the galaxy, we can only blindly follow the instructions of the homocidal maniac that's been trying to kill us.

[Belisarius09]

If the catalyst dies, then the Reapers would be defeated since he controls them, neh? so blow up the citadel and then the reapers are defeated conventionally. tada

[Computim]

Belisarius09 wrote...

If the catalyst dies, then the Reapers would be defeated since he controls them, neh? so blow up the citadel and then the reapers are defeated conventionally. tada

..or they become like a hive of bees if you kill the queen... no longer driven by purpose but just really angry at you in particular.

[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.

[richard_rider]

Reorte wrote...

richard_rider wrote...

Wow, perfect timing, I was just about to create a thread asking a similar question, and since no one on other threads can seem to answer this, I'll ask it here.

How can people call a "conventional" victory ridiculous, impossible, childish, unattainable, etc, but can so easily accept the Deus Ex Machina?

They don't. The DEM is just as annoying and stupid.

The problem with a conventional victory goes back to ME1 where an entire fleet couldn't so much as scratch
 Sovereign until Saren popped. A bigger fleet in ME3, presumably with somewhat better equipment, manages to do some damage but receives more - one blast from a Reaper seems to be enough to tear a dreadnaught in half. More time was needed between the end of 1 and 3 and that time should've been spent desperately building up strength, using information from Sovereign (we got some but not enough time to do enough retrofitting) and searching for previous cycle tech. If the Crucible was anything it should've just been enough technology to gain an edge over the Reapers.

The problem is, IMO, that in 3, reapers are so ridiculously OP, in ME1, yes they are powerful, and they are alien and scary, but that's because we know nothing about them, by ME3, we know a lot more, we've reverse engineered tech from them, an so on.

Not only that though, we've delayed their invasion twice, we've retained control of the relays, we've united all the space faring species in the galaxy under one banner, survival.

We've already done impossible things that no cycle before us has done, but when it comes to shooting one down, we all go, "Derp, we needz da cruceebl".

We don't know what it is, what it does, if it's a reaper trap, if it's going to kill us all, harvest us all, if it's a distraction and reapers are laughing their metallic jimmies off while our dumb****es try to build the damn thing."

Why can people accept space magic out of left field, but not accept, that maybe if we shoot them, they'll die.

I bet if it was written without the DEM/mcguffin/whatever, people would be squeeling with joy abot how true to himself Shepard has been, and how he can heroically overcome the odds without sacrificing his own moral code.

bah

[thefallen2far]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

But, they did.  And it was popular.  Garnered a huge fan following.  If they had some people die, maybe it'd be easier to accept the "conventional war is impossible.

And why does everyone think it was an entire fleet against Sovergn?  You fighting an Armada of Geth who'd been building up their resources for decades lead by a Reaper.

The Geth are now fighting on the other side.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 28 juin 2012 - 01:34 .

[Painaid]

Winning conventionally is infinitely more plausible than two of the three other endings (Control & Synthesis) since both of those are SPACE MAGIC and thus have no logical, physical premise. So yes, I think it is a bit silly that with an INSANELY high EMS that we cannot win through conventional means.

And I realize the counter argument to this. "Well, if we could win by conventional means, then that would invalidate all the other three choices as clearly not being as good." Well, why is this necessarily a knock on the Refuse option? Maybe this is a knock on how sour the other choices are. NONE of the other choices symbolize what my Paragon or Renegade Shepard would do. Only the Refuse option fits this choice.

My Shep would never pick control after just talking down TIM over how stupid of an idea that was. My Shep would also never pick Synthesis since I already proved that idea wrong in ME1 with Saren. And there is no way I'd pick Destroy if it means sacrificing the Geth and EDI (a stupid drawback put in there by BioWare just so it isn't a no brainer canon ending). I romanced Tali. I was still looking forward to going back to Rannoch and seeing the Geth and Quarians working side by side with one another with rebuilding the homeworld.

Maybe I'm just too much of an romantic idealist, but I LIKE the option of winning. It's why I LIKED the suicide mission having the possible of not losing everybody. Did I pick this for every playthrough? Of course not. But it gave replayability to the game. And maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't the fact that everyone could survive the suicide mission popular with the fans?

WHY did BioWare find it necessary not to offer a happy ending? I don't get it. They wanted to ****** in my Cheerios no matter what option I picked and I find that very disturbing after all the time I spent on all three games through multiple saves. It's kinda silly and immature of them really because it doesn't fit the Space Opera genre of Mass Effect. Because in the last 10 minutes, Casey Hudson decides to make the game all dark and gloomy with no right choice. 

Modifié par Painaid, 28 juin 2012 - 01:46 .

[Aquilas]

At its core EMS has virtually no real military meaning in the final battle.  It's a game mechanic driving how many options you get at endgame, what dead squad members you get at the beam site, etc. It's a methodology to quantify your choices and discoveries, to give the appearance, the illusion that your choices matter.

Regarding EMS tying into the Crucible's capabilities, in the "real" game world the Crucible architecture would have to have EMS values pre-loaded so it could calculate what credit, what bonus points Shepard got for collecting specific resources. Also, it would need a sensor array, monitoring devices, etc. that could detect when Shepard and the allies secured available resources. It would need to quantify and detect things such as Citadel doctors feeling bad about themselves because an Asari huntress they treated committed suicide.

And as we know, with a high enough EMS the Crucible can blast a beam of Space Magic throughout the entire galaxy to change the very matrix of life itself, to fuse organic DNA and synthetic code at the nuclear level to create a new life form.

So the Crucible must be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Hmmm. Maybe Star-jar isn't an AI-God after all. The Crucible is. More likely Star-jar and the Crucible from a symbiotic deity. Hence no conventional victory is possible.  Shepard must use the Crucible.  Why? Because it is ordained.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 02:12 .

[Computim]

Painaid wrote...

Winning conventionally is infinitely more plausible than two of the three other endings (Control & Synthesis) since both of those are SPACE MAGIC and thus have no logical, physical premise. So yes, I think it is a bit silly that with an INSANELY high EMS that we cannot win through conventional means.

And I realize the counter argument to this. "Well, if we could win by conventional means, then that would invalidate all the other three choices as clearly not being as good." Well, why is this necessarily a knock on the Refuse option? Maybe this is a knock on how sour the other choices are. NONE of the other choices symbolize what my Paragon or Renegade Shepard would do. Only the Refuse option fits this choice.

My Shep would never pick control after just talking down TIM over how stupid of an idea that was. My Shep would also never pick Synthesis since I already proved that idea wrong in ME1 with Saren. And there is no way I'd pick Destroy if it means sacrificing the Geth and EDI (a stupid drawback put in there by BioWare just so it isn't a no brainer canon ending). I romanced Tali. I was still looking forward to going back to Rannoch and seeing the Geth and Quarians working side by side with one another with rebuilding the homeworld.

Or:

A) That if we're going extinct we're taking them with us
 We at least take enough of the squids with us that the next cycle can finish the job for us.

[ExSturminator]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

In regards to the suicide mission, I think that would have been excellent.  Virmire was one of my favorite moments from the series, and I like how the decision still haunts Shepard a little in later games.  Having to make a couple of those decisions during the suicide mission would have made it much more intense.  I imagine dealing with so many divergent outcomes would be difficult, but the idea that everyone could die in the first place makes me wonder why you didn't force a few Virmires there. /=|

Personally I would have loved to see more Virmire situations in ME3 too.  I kept expecting one with Garrus and Liara to give us a real kick in the gut and drive home the 'sacrifice' theme.  Oh!  Or maybe the Normandy being destroyed by the Destroy ending (since it takes out EDI) instead of the Geth (who've been trying to kill you for three games and were only just starting to gain my sympathy).  THAT would have resulted in rage, so maybe it's for the best that didn't happen, lol.

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, lol 

Modifié par ExSturminator, 28 juin 2012 - 01:48 .

[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.

[Psile_01]

didnt anyone reject all choices in EC? You try to win conventionally and die. The next cycle picks up Glyph and uses that info to win. I dont like it, but its canon now so...

[Emphyr]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
And as for the "Shepard can do the impossible!" fallacy... are you implying that Shepard is going to go and kill all the Reapers himself?

Fixed that for you:



(from the mass effect fans lol tread)

[Pottumuusi]

Of course conventional victory isn't possible, even though you brought every species in the galaxy together and had perfect war assets, nope.

Because screw you player.

[Dresden867]

It bears pointing out for the Reapers that were killed, on-screen, throughout the series, that of those, only -one- was a Sovereign-class monster (Sovereign itself), and that one chewed a good bit of the combined fleets at the Citadel up in the process.

Of the smaller destroyer types: One was expressly eaten by a giant kaiju sandworm. This tactic is a little hard to implement on a galactic scale, since we cannot simply post a "Free Reapings Here" sign in giant kaiju sandworm territory.

One was expressly nuked with -an entire fleet- worth of firepower, coordinated. This kind of hit is a chump shot, and cannot be relied upon in normal space combat. (It was also coordinated as a space-to-ground strike on a target that was distracted by Shep, not something we can rely on, again, in conventional combat).

The one on guard duty at the Citadel Beam effectively took out the entire force that was arrayed against it, only at the end actually being defeated by a coordinated effort between a unique AI and Shepard (again, not a conventional space battle option).

At no point was any Reaper, in the series, defeated without -huge- cost in a conventional space engagement.

[Dresden867]

Emphyr wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
And as for the "Shepard can do the impossible!" fallacy... are you implying that Shepard is going to go and kill all the Reapers himself?

Fixed that for you:

(imaged removed for the quote)

(from the mass effect fans lol tread)

That image clearly needs to read either "Shepard Pawnch" or "Shepard Charge"

[ExSturminator]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

That makes sense in regards to the DLC dependencies, but what if the extension were similar to the Extended Cut?  An addon that expanded on that one ending and added EMS dependencies within that one branch, and the higher level outcomes (i.e. anything but losing), were only available via extensive multiplayer or the additional war assets boost you could obtain via DLC (not requiring DLC war assets, just a really high EMS)?  The extension wouldn't require any other content, it would just expand what already existed and tweak the EMS levels again; players that didn't buy DLC or play multiplayer would just never get a high enough EMS to win that way.  Like you said, fans might blow up about being forced to play something other than SP or buy DLC to get that ending that they wanted, but it might be something worth keeping a thermometer in to guage public opinion; enough people clamoring for a conventional victory/squad reunion, and they might accept that as a solution.  A whole lot of us were ready and willing to pay for the Extended Cut too, and you guys were just nice enough to give it away, lol.

[httinks2006]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.


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?

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

At the risk of being rude, a lot of that frustration was self inflicted.  Had you told us from the start that Bioware wanted us to play Multiplayer (or some other source of EMS) to get the best endings, things would have been a lot better.  Instead we were told the opposite when you and your collegues knew it wasn't true and stonewalled us for months.

...and you wonder why there was a lot of frustration?

With regard to more EMS to get a better Reject ending, if Bioware is upfront with us from the start about what it would take (the perfect game with maximum readiness for example), I think you'd see a lot less frustration and hostility.

-Polaris

[10K]

I don't think you could win conventionally, It would just feel too unrealistic. Throughout the entire game your forces were getting beaten on, even the catalyst states you've suffered many losses when you're about to reject him. EMS or no, it doesn't change the fact that war has been going on and you've been losing. They are an immortal race of sentient machines and it will take more than conventional efforts to defeat them. This has been stated over and over throughout the game. The crucible is the only means to stop them, and if you don't use it you lose. Simple as that.

Modifié par mosesarose, 28 juin 2012 - 02:39 .

[httinks2006]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Thank you for responding and being repectful I can easily live with 50/50 and take my chances and I do know that others have higher war assests and scores they play multiplayer I do not . though I will say this with my love of Mass Effect (eventhough anger and disappointment show through at times) i would have even considered playing multiplayer which I don't like if it meant the chance that it would have effected the refuse option outcome.

[IanPolaris]

mosesarose wrote...

I don't think you could will conventionally, It would just feel too unrealistic. Throughout the entire game your forces were getting beaten on, even the catalyst states you've suffered many losses when you're about to reject him. EMS or no, it doesn't change the fact that war has been going on and you've been losing. They are an immortal race of sentient machines and it will take more than conventional efforts to defeat them. This has been stated over and over throughout the game. The crucible is the only means to stop them, and if you don't use it you lose. Simple as that.

Given that one of the themes of Mass Effect from the start was Shepard doing the impossible, I wouldn't be too sure that a non-crucible victory would be impossible.  Extremely difficult and costly at best to be sure, and you'd have to get lucky too, but still.....

However, even if we accept that a non-Crucible victory this cycle might be impossible, HOW you lost and how badly you bleed the Reapers before you did should have mattered for the next cycle,.  We know the Reapers are not invulnerable and we know there can't be very many Soveign class Reapers (about a thousand absolute max based on the codex entries).  Given enough time to advance, evolve, and prepare who's to say that a WARNED technologically advanced race (say the Yahg) wouldn't be able to curbstomp the Reapers....but some members of bioware are already telling us.  Nope.  Nada.  Playing the Starchild's game is the only way.

That's why I think (or one reason I think) it's a petty and spiteful ending on the part of the writers.

-Polaris

[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.

[Omnifarious Nef]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

If I have to buy 6 DLC's totaling a hundred bucks, then so be it. I just want my ending I was promised.

Modifié par NeferiusX3, 28 juin 2012 - 02:52 .

[httinks2006]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Actually I'd expect that in the third  Game ending how many of your friendsand past squadmates would sacrifice their lives to save the galaxy . Showing that in CGI  that for me would have been more powerful. and an investment in a case of tissue probably would ahve been a sound investment .