531 réponses à ce sujet

[CaliGuy033]

vivaladricas wrote...

Wow more writers should write an unbeatable enemy, it makes it so much more dramatic. *rolls eyes*

Do that might as well leave the paper blank and never write the story to begin with. 

Unbeatable?  You are given three options to beat the Reapers.

"Can't beat them the exact way I want to" is not the same thing as "unbeatable."  

[NM_Che56]

vivaladricas wrote...

Wow more writers should write an unbeatable enemy, it makes it so much more dramatic. *rolls eyes*

Do that might as well leave the paper blank and never write the story to begin with. 

...but you can beat the Reapers.  You just have to be willing to sacrafice something for it. 

[Nerevar-as]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

That future cycle used the Crucible.  This has been made explicitly clear by Mike Gamble (and frankly, shoudl have been pretty damn clear just by watching the end sequence).

Is using the Crucible a "conventional victory"?  Didn't think so.

It´s odd they use the Crucible considering Liara clearly states it didn´t work.

But I´ve given up on expecting certain things to make sense.

[mad825]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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?

No? You are limiting on possible choice and forcing us to use the magic space cannon seeing as there's no other way. I got the idea of ME being about a mixture of being told and telling a story with neither of them being mutually exclusive.

In Deus Ex,DX:Invisible war and DXHR. there is a choice to refuse which goes on the theme of anarchy. It's not necessary a good choice and is usually the most destructive. For example, In DXIW the refusal choice is about rejecting all the other ideas and restore the status quo however this leads to the ultimate demise of humanity via internal conflict and the rise of the Omar.

What about the EMS rating? couldn't that have severed as a chance to defeat the reapers? a possible new extended gaming mechanic from the suicide mission in ME2?

The biggest problem is that we don't see them lose, when we choose the refusal ending it just seems like we had failed to get a question right.

Modifié par mad825, 27 juin 2012 - 07:44 .

[VII Revenant]

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.

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.

Modifié par VII Revenant, 27 juin 2012 - 07:47 .

[Temprathe]

I don't think it's possible. The galaxy seemed as if it were putting up a fight (losing it, but putting it up anyway) because the Reapers were trying to collect them and turn them into yogurt, not slaughter them. EDI points this out on Earth when she questions why the Reapers don't just outright destroy them. They have the numbers, gathered from dozens of civilizations that have been Reaperized for millions of years. And they obviously have superior firepower.

I think, if the Reapers really wanted to, they could mop the floor with the galaxy. With all the galaxy united it might prove a bit of a challenge for them (I *think* this was said in ME's codex, or at least alluded to somewhere in ME, although I could be wrong), but the winner would still be clear. Just look at what happened to Palaven, the home planet of the strongest military force in the galaxy. And the Reapers weren't even channeling all their strength into that. Half of what they did use was spent trying to capture, not destroy.

Even Thessia, which was the home to Prothean technology, was defeated without much of a fight. The only reason Earth lasted as long as it did was because we ran more than fought, taking shuttles out of the planet whenever we could. And according to Anderson, really, Earth could have been considered just as much a lost cause as Palaven or Thessia given the looks of things.

[CaliGuy033]

Nerevar-as wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

That future cycle used the Crucible.  This has been made explicitly clear by Mike Gamble (and frankly, shoudl have been pretty damn clear just by watching the end sequence).

Is using the Crucible a "conventional victory"?  Didn't think so.

It´s odd they use the Crucible considering Liara clearly states it didn´t work.

But I´ve given up on expecting certain things to make sense.

Maybe they (correctly) deduced that it didn't work because of user error, rather than the actual technology not working.

The Crucible clearly works.  It doesn't "work" in the Refuse ending because Shepard stubbornly refuses to use it.  

[sydranark]

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.

Unacceptable in this series. You have created this world in which true "realistic" concepts do not apply. The man survived entering a planet's atmosphere =/. He ended wars and overcame any obstacle thrown at him. It simply doesn't suit the reality of THIS storyline for there not to be a conventional victory. 

You want to talk reality, lets talk the practicality of controlling the most advanced sentient creatures ever created in this galaxy. Lets discuss how exactly someone jumping into a magical beam of light can turn the entire galaxy's organics into synthetics. Despite all of these options, why is it that a conventional victory is the one that seems the most farfetched?

[7he Island Head]

7he Island Head 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.

I think the disappointment comes from two things. Firstly the whole story revolving around a space magic generator (the Crucible) that no one knows anything about or what it does. Secondly all the missions are about building a convention army or acquiring war assests to fight the reapers conventionaly. It seems like all of Shep's efforts were a waste of time, because it comes down to him chosing options only present to him in the last few minutes of the game, involving a mysterious machine that you only help build indirectly.

I feel like the plot got pulled into two different directions, a noncoventional and conventional war effort, this made the ending unsatisfying for the ending is based in the nonconventional war effort, while the journey is based on the conventional war effort. You don't even see the Crucible getting built, and the noncoventional war effort which provides the ending that player has no interaction with at all. 

Modifié par 7he Island Head, 27 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[blacqout]

Master Che wrote...

If conventional means was all it took, then why are we here? Why didn't one of the millions of cycles before get the job done? The Protheans were more advanced and they built their civilization on the ruins of others.

I just think that a conventional victory in an unconventional war is a stretch, even for fiction.

Javik mentions that his cycle's weakness was that they all adhered to the same doctrine and were unable to adapt. While the the Protheans' imperialism proved to be a downfall, the democratic nature and sheer diversity of Shepard's cycle seemed to give it an edge.

[Neothanos]

The game is quite clear in the new refusal ending. Not possible. Either pick one of the 3 options or everybody dies.

[CaliGuy033]

blacqout wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If conventional means was all it took, then why are we here? Why didn't one of the millions of cycles before get the job done? The Protheans were more advanced and they built their civilization on the ruins of others.

I just think that a conventional victory in an unconventional war is a stretch, even for fiction.

Javik mentions that his cycle's weakness was that they all adhered to the same doctrine and were unable to adapt. While the the Protheans' imperialism proved to be a downfall, the democratic nature and sheer diversity of Shepard's cycle seemed to give it an edge.

Sure, this cycle did a lot better than Javik's.  That still doesn't mean conventional victory is possible.  It could just as easily (and clearly does, as we've seen) mean that they hold out the fight for longer but still fail.

[NM_Che56]

blacqout wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If conventional means was all it took, then why are we here? Why didn't one of the millions of cycles before get the job done? The Protheans were more advanced and they built their civilization on the ruins of others.

I just think that a conventional victory in an unconventional war is a stretch, even for fiction.

Javik mentions that his cycle's weakness was that they all adhered to the same doctrine and were unable to adapt. While the the Protheans' imperialism proved to be a downfall, the democratic nature and sheer diversity of Shepard's cycle seemed to give it an edge.

That's not the same as saying that a "conventional" means of war will defeat the Reapers, though. 

Maybe their ways and doctrines leaned more in the way of conventional and our ways mean that we 'think outside of the box and come up with crazy sH*+"?

[Kreid]

Do people get in their heads that there are provably over one thousand Reaper Capital Ships? There's no power in the whole Galaxy to match that. It's not even about defeating the odds, it's simply mathematically impossible.

[NM_Che56]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

blacqout wrote...

Master Che wrote...

If conventional means was all it took, then why are we here? Why didn't one of the millions of cycles before get the job done? The Protheans were more advanced and they built their civilization on the ruins of others.

I just think that a conventional victory in an unconventional war is a stretch, even for fiction.

Javik mentions that his cycle's weakness was that they all adhered to the same doctrine and were unable to adapt. While the the Protheans' imperialism proved to be a downfall, the democratic nature and sheer diversity of Shepard's cycle seemed to give it an edge.

Sure, this cycle did a lot better than Javik's.  That still doesn't mean conventional victory is possible.  It could just as easily (and clearly does, as we've seen) mean that they hold out the fight for longer but still fail.

Get out of my head.

[Temprathe]

Neothanos wrote...

The game is quite clear in the new refusal ending. Not possible. Either pick one of the 3 options or everybody dies.

Agreed.

[Hicks233]

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.

Choices and possibilities.

If there was a scale of outcomes regarding Reject that depended on your efforts and actions then I'd be satisfied as opposed to "lol no u have to use crucible".

It's just going round and round in circles for me with my problem being with the Crucible just being a bad idea. A bad idea that allowed the Catalyst which was a worse idea. Which led to control/synthesis which were terrible ideas and destroy which was what we were originally setting out to do from ME1.

I just find it puzzling why there was felt the need for the MacGuffin of the Crucible when surely bringing together a conventional millitary force would be a satisfying and understandable goal in its own right for a player. As opposed to - Well... you bring all these forces together, and they're going to get anhilated so that we can use some thing and... noodles and then something will happen.. with lights and stuff... you get a lecture as well! Won't that be fun! With science and things! Fun! Science!

Just a really disapointing and (for me) badly chosen mechanic for motivation compared to ending conflicts, bringing about alliances and recovering forces for a conventional battle, you know... Emotionaly affecting motivations, things that can be related to. Going through ME1 and 2 and up until the end of ME3 I was under the impression that the themes of Mass Effect were overcoming differences and impossible odds, celebrating diversity, hope and determination, independence and civility. Apparently I was so very, very wrong. It was infact about - Machines bad. Squishy good. Differences bad. Homogeny marvellous. Now sit and listen to your lecture.

Without the MacGuffin though there'd have been little reason for the Catalyst and well... we have an idea of how much its been steadfastly clung onto. It could have been interesting if there was the possibility of the Crucible being intercepted and destroyed, or not even working. Instead it got plot armour so we could get our Catalyst lecture.

[LazyTechGuy]

mad825 wrote...

Even Javik admitted it was possible so why not?

What race was he a part of again?

Because they spread the fight out over centuries and still got owned.

[NM_Che56]

Creid-X wrote...

Do people get in their heads that there are provably over one thousand Reaper Capital Ships? There's no power in the whole Galaxy to match that. It's not even about defeating the odds, it's simply mathematically impossible.

And on that note, how much more demystifying would it be to have a bunch of Thanix cannons be the way you take out a capital ship?

"our numbers will darken the skies...until you shoot at us with Thanix cannons, then we're F****D"!

[ReD BaKen9]

I would like that ending too

[Warrior Craess]

Oransel wrote...

vivaladricas wrote...

So there is not one writer out there that can come up with a unconventional yet non spacebaby off button solution..... my arse.

Not Independence day style, but they are part machines and machines can be broken. They obviously aren't that bright to begin with, and that laser isn't all that fast if you can dodge it on the ground. They have code, they can certainly be hurt we saw that a few times in the series.

So yes they can, the writer choose not to allow it.

This is what I meant. Non-Crucible win should be possible.

But it isn't. Too much prep time was lost in between ME1 and 2, and there is basically no prep time between 2 and 3.  Aside from the turians making a Thanix missle, no one did any prep that would allow this cycle to stand up and defeat the reapers. 

Could a conventional was have been written to succede? yes, but it would have required that all council races (and non council races) be aware of the reaper threat, believe the reaper threat, and able to allocate enough finances to their war making capabilities.  Sadly none of this took place. 

I suppose that both the systems alliance and the Turians could have secretly done those things expressly against the will of the council.... But then they would have to stop the Reapers from grabbing the citadel and closing the relays. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

KDD-0063 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's hammered into your head through the course of three games that Reapers are unstoppable.

Fixed for you.

ME2's codex had a number of options that the council races' scientists and Cerberus are researching that can damage the reapers.

In ME1, there was still very little information about the reapers.
In ME2, we get the feeling of reapers are powerful in the stress Shepard's feeling but not much more.

Only in the third game suddenly people say that the reapers are completely unstoppable.

Fixed it back for you.

In ME1 we know very little information, other than... it took how many ships to kill ONE stationary Reaper? And how many ships did we lose to the Geth who are not, in any way, as advanced as the Reapers?

In ME2 the Codexes say we're capable of damaging Reapers. Great. I can damage a tank if I hit it enough, but it will still blow me the hell up while doing so. Yes we can damage them, but clearly given their minions (the Collectors), the can damage us much more severely, much quicker.

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? Or are you implying that everyone in the galaxy is as capable as Shepard? I just want to know which avenue of "logic" you're trying to use so I can properly debunk it. Thanks.

[xxskyshadowxx]

The Refusal ending shows that it is impossible to defeat the Reapers conventionally, despite what the EMS description says if you have really high EMS ratings. It proves that the EMS rating system doesn't matter at all narratively and was merely a scheme to coax people into MP to earn some extra cash through micro transactions.

While the one thing I liked about the Refusal ending is that it made use of Liara's time capsule, the ending would have been more interesting if at higher EMS levels, the option for Shepard to refute the Catalyst's claims with examples of how Shepard did a better job at ending the chaos than the Catalyst was doing (assuming the player saved the Geth, gave EDI good answers, etc.) with it's extensive periodic genocide scheme. Then Shepard should be permitted to tell it the galaxy has earned it's right to forge it's own future so GTFO, and if the Catalyst refuses, with a high enough EMS, the galaxy should be permitted to win conventionaly. The Catalyst can still blow the relays ina fit of pique and still force the rebuild on your own merits part of the ending. Shepard can even still die from his/her wounds if a happy ending is only allowed in ME1/2. But the conventional victory could, and arguably would have made sense. IMHO