531 réponses à ce sujet

[saracen16]

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

You first.

You're the one who made the statement. The onus is on you to prove that conventional victory is possible in spite of...

A. not knowing the exact number of Reapers,
B. not knowing their locations,
C. not knowing how long it will take for supplies to run out for the allied side,
D. not knowing the exact disposition of the fleets that Shepard gathered, not the fleets that exist in the galaxy, and
E. not knowing whether it is practical enough to begin with.

We're waiting.

[Huitzil]

FAButzke wrote...

From the codex:
"The turian fleet presently has 37 dreadnaughts; the asari, 21; and the
salarians, 16. Humanity has six, with additional hull under construction at
Arcturus Station. Alliance battleships are named for mountains of Earth. "

Question: How many dreadnaughts the Reapers have?
Answer: A ****load of them.

It took all the galaxy for EARTH to stand a chance. What about the rest of the galaxy?
Please... THINK!

As much as you will go on about how overwheming the odds are, it won't change that 

A: Commander Shepard eats overwheming odds for breakfast

B: All of the options we do get are even less plausible.

[Ridwan]

FAButzke wrote...

From the codex:
"The turian fleet presently has 37 dreadnaughts; the asari, 21; and the
salarians, 16. Humanity has six, with additional hull under construction at
Arcturus Station. Alliance battleships are named for mountains of Earth. "

Question: How many dreadnaughts the Reapers have?
Answer: A ****load of them.

It took all the galaxy for EARTH to stand a chance. What about the rest of the galaxy?
Please... THINK!

Well you see there was this big ass geth fleet that came with Sovereign, but I guess no one is counting them.

Edit: Failure from my side, I misread the post and thought it was about the ships lost when Sovereign came to make love to the citadel. My bad.

Let me save face, that we got the Geth ships on our side against the reapers.

Modifié par M25105, 27 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[CaliGuy033]

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

[Ridwan]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

What's that got to do with my post? I already wrote that we lost cause it was the writers choice.

[Goodwood]

Heeden wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

As someone who dabbles in military strategy and tactics (most commonly viewed through the lens of historical research), I could list a thousand and one reasons why a so-called "conventional" war against the Reapers could be winnable without the Crucible. It wouldn't be easy, and it wouldn't be quick, but such a thing is very possible. The Reapers have already demonstrated both understanding and blithe ignorance to Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and I have no qualms in saying that Tzu, at least, would have known that victory was within the realm of the possible.

Tactically speaking everyone in the ME universe is completely retarded, lining up space-ships as if it's an 18th century naval battle then proceeding with a ground war is the sort of stupidity you'd expect from wh40k (and even then they make a better job of space-battles).

While cutscenes are pretty and all that, let's just look at them for what they are: allegorical representations that we pea-brained humanoids can comprehend (could you honestly imagine watching a space battle being fought by the lore's own rules?). They're not meant to represent the strategy of the admirals or the tactics of the warship captains; they're meant to draw us in and say "oooooh" as the battle unfolds.

Rather, look to the codex. As the game's campaign progresses, entries on the Reaper War are unlocked that tell us explicitly how certain battles turned out (likely depending on your choices). Hell, even the descriptions for certain planets (for example, in the asari home system) outline any sort of combat that may have taken place in orbit or close by. A couple of very noteworthy examples are "The Fifteen-Minute Plan" and "The Miracle at Palaven" in which many Reaper destroyers and at least a dozen (by my reckoning) capital ships are destroyed outright. The ground wars on each of these planets are waged by foot soldiers of both sides, and the codex also explicitly states in the entry marked "Reaper Capabilities" a number of vulnerabilities; for example, they have to lower their mass in order to land on a world, and are thus much more vulnerable to conventional weapons (never mind the recent round of upgrades).

The key things here to remember are these: First, by the time of the second encounter with Kai Leng on Thessia, the Reapers are fighting a war on at least three, if not four or more, fronts. They're still bogged down on Palaven and Earth, taking their time to harvest organics on the latter world and battling the turians and krogen on the former planet; the asari homeworld, though largely cut off, is still putting up a fight even if it's not nearly as effective elsewhere, and they've been pushed off of Tuchanka and Rannoch completely. So they're spread pretty thin, and their numbers are not infinite.

The second thing to remember is that the relay network is still operational. This is huge, as both the codex and every Prothean you meet (whether live or as a VI) tells you. During their cycle, the Reapers had succeeded in shutting down the network (a move Sun Tzu would have applauded), effectively ceasing any chance of pan-galactic unification and resistance. This opens up broad avenues for unconventional warfare, including hit-and-fade strikes on Reaper-occupied worlds, the clandestine gathering of information or evacuation of supplies, resources, civilians and soldiers, and even to lure small flotillas of Reaper ships away from the main body to ambush and destroy them.

The Reaper War is the Wu-Chu Conflict (the war which made Sun Tzu famous) in macro view. Tzu won that war, despite being outnumbered ten-to-one, by using a mixture of guile, audacity, and foreknowledge. Then he wrote all he had learned into a compendium of knowledge: The Art of War.

[Reorte]

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.

[Talhydras]

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 Allan's question: No. It is not acceptable that you can't win conventionally, because it forces the plot to rely on the Crucible which in my experience was a net loss to the story.

TLDR: Why didn't Gandalf let Frodo ride an Eagle straight to Mt. Doom in the movies? Except with ME universe: why didn't we massacre the Reapers with any number of well-understood technologies and tactics, all of which exist in one form or another today and plausibly would be significantly more effective in the universe of ME? Why are we choosing a plot that relies on a glorified macguffin over a plot about struggle and perseverence against the seemingly impossible rewarded with final triumph?

Part One: The Crucible is Inherently Silly: Wiser posters than me have pointed out that creating a powerful villain is good but creating an invincible villain is incredibly boring, and if we religiously believe that Hackett is right and that conventional victory is literally impossible then the story is fundamentally changed. Instead of bettering ourselves, instead of rising to the challenge, instead of achieving what everyone told us was unachievable...

...we flick on the long-lost Reaper off switch. I find that a shallow and boring plot, because it implies that any other course of action is suicide - that the Reapers are effectively unbeatable unless we use the macguffin. I find it a patently absurd plot. Millions upon millions of years of radically different species - with different languages, units, systems, and technology - can be compiled into a coherent machine? That is as crazy a proposition as Synthesis is. A game of telephone, about a practically-divine/magical machine, played across millions (perhaps billions) of years? And it's something we can figure out? Think about how long and hard everyone had to work to understand Prothean technology. How many different breakthroughs were required - the Beacons, the Cipher... now imagine that but for thousands of species. It's a plot so absurd that to this day I can't understand why it wasn't laughed out of the writing room.

This sort of macguffin based plot has been done far better in the past: Star Control 2's climax involves the invincible flagship of an alien empire about to fall in the hands of a group of omnicidal betentacled monstrosities. Instead of vaguely desribed capabilities, however, the ancient alien device that destroys it has a very believable delivery system, introduction, and original purpose: a gigantic antimatter device used to disperse unwanted planets. Of course it would work to disperse unwanted planet-sized alien death platforms. To get past the alien death platform's super-shields, you have to first distract the guard fleet with a well-established in-universe power, then destroy the remainder in conventional assault, then disable key structures on the surface of the enemy superweapon. While it's certainly convenient that the bomb exists at all, it's presented believably as part of an ancient alien empire that was doing many different types of terraforming and planetary-scale engineering. It is foreshadowed in multiple conversations throughout the plot, its effects are described sufficiently if you pay attention to anyone... in short, it's actually plausible. Since you are the lone free ship in this story, it's much more logical to rely on jury-rigging a superweapon. There the universe has nicely explained why a war of attrition is impossible because you're utterly on your own and if you draw it out too long the omnicidal betentacled monstrosities gain control of the planet-sized alien death platform and go on a rampage. Consequences for your actions.

Part Two: ME Writers had little to no Military SF background yet decided to write a MilitarySF story: Here's my other problem : Military SF that relies on technical details is only as good as the technical background of the writers. It was a colossal mistake to put numbers on the relative strength of the Reapers because it allows me to use my own head and figure out the face-palmingly OBVIOUS ways of defeating them HANDILY.

Don't believe me? I could use ME universe technology to design a handgun whose every shot killed a capital ship reaper.
Fact 1: Reapers can be defeated by a specific number of dreadnoughts whose weapons exert a specific amount of force.
Fact 2: Reapers are protected by an active defensive system that only blocks kinetic energy and nothing else. This means that that at least some of those dreadnoughts' firepower is totally absorbed by these defenses, and the actual force needed to defeat a Reaper's armor is lower than 4x Dreadnought Main Cannon.
Fact 3: E=MC^2 describes the energy output from matter annihilating - purely in the form of high energy photons which BYPASS Reaper active defenses.
Fact 4: There are references to antimatter production facilities in ME. I'm fairly sure Firebase Reactor is an antimatter farm, for instance, and I believe terrorists stole some in ME1?

Therefore, I can work backwards and calculate the amount of matter annihilating necessary to generate a Reaper-destroying blast. To do so, I assume that two of the four dreadnoughts are needed to knock down the Reaper's barriers and two are needed to kill its armor. I also assume that I can only get half of the energy of the matter annihilation onto the target - the other half will radiate away from the point of annihilation. 4.184 TJ per kiloton TNT * (twice a dreadnought's yield of 60 kt * double yield needed to ensure 120 KT TNT deposited on target) / (speed of light squared) = 11.1 grams of matter annihilating.

That's slightly more than the weight of a single 7.62×39mm rifle cartridge. Now, the payload would of course need a bit more mass tacked on - magnetic confinement, or perhaps Mass Effect confinement. Even if we have to be really inefficient and make the confinement systems mass 200 times the matter/antimatter payload, that's still on the scale of a modern RPG round. Since we can see the Reapers without any distortion, we can effectively use laser ranging to proximity-trigger our anti-Reaper AM bomb. This universe has ALL of these technologies.

So the other half of my big problem with the Crucible plot is that every military planner in the galaxy is poorly written. I accept that four dreadnoughts are needed to kill a Reaper. OK, so WHY ARE WE USING DREADNOUGHTS? They're REALLY good at getting killed by Reapers because they're big slow targets. Think about Priority: Tuchanka. Think about how long one wing of Turian fighters held out against a Reaper. They're obviously way worse at hitting small targets than they are at hitting large targets. They also obviously underestimate small targets. Nobody even CONSIDERS a fighter or frigate swarm.

Gosh, that sounds a bit like our tiny antimatter missiles - or hell, even a Cold-War era SLBM that could have easily been carried by a ME universe fighter to slaughter Reapers wholesale. Oh, and nobody even CONSIDERS building massive laser weapons in this entire universe. Everyone is inextricably wedded to kinetic weapons even though there's a cheap and easy to use active defense against them and no corresponding defense against radiation. Never mind that eezo could probably be used to make really efficient cyclotrons to feed free electron lasers, which would have hundreds of times the range and accuracy of a 4000 km/sec slug and 100% pierce barriers as a side effect...

In a nutshell, Allan: I don't like that conventional victory isn't possible because that makes the story into military SF. The ME writers may be amazing at character moments, at emotional or dramatic scenes, but the undeniable truth is that they're not very good at military SF. That the story as it stands cannot stand up to any contemplation at all in that context is unfortunate. That the galaxy's vaguely defined and implausibly bad strategic position is used as a justification for a Deus ex Machina plot is inexcusible. The Turians never once experimented with a dreadnought sized laser carrier? The humans didn't embark hundreds of advanced miniaturized fusion bombs on their carriers with which they could saturate Reaper point defense and kill them? The Asari don't have antimatter-cored rounds for the Destiny Ascenscion? The Salarians don't have antimatter suitcase bombs for their STG teams? None of the Council Militaries have carefully hidden strategic reserves of antimatter weapons to sterilize whole planets in a jiffy if someone like the Rachni come around again? Come on, nobody is this stupid and unimaginitive!

So no. Conventional military should have been enough all along. This should have been a story about inventiveness, resourcefulness, intelligence, and planning. Magical machines that frankly work more like throwing Sauron's ring into the Fires of Mount Doom than anything rational have no place in Mass Effect. Shepard should have been able to live up to his/her paragon promise to TIM at the end of Mass Effect 2: We'll fight and win without it. 

Modifié par Talhydras, 27 juin 2012 - 09:03 .

[Rip504]

Oransel wrote...

According to the lore. I'd say NO NO NO, it is not possible. 9000 EMS should NOT be a victory in my opinion.

To those who say that conventional victory is impossible because Hackett said it. Hackett is the reason we have ANY chance at defeating the Reapers. He is also an Admiral.

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.

So NO,and I am glad "it" isn't.

:lol:

[KDD-0063]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

True, but that doesn't mean making conventional victory to be completely impossible--in fact, irrelevent, is not bad writing. And it goes against what ME3 was advertised: there is no reaper off button.

[CaliGuy033]

M25105 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

What's that got to do with my post? I already wrote that we lost cause it was the writers choice.

My point is that every single thing that happens in the game is "because of the writers' choice."  You realize that you don't actually get to make true decisions in the game, right?  You get to select from predetermined choices that the writers gave you.

I just don't see the point in mentioning how it's "because of the writers."  Of course it is.  Everything that happens in a video game, story-wise, is because of the writers.  

[Aquilas]

Zelto wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

The Catalyst says it's been running the Cycle for aeons.  That's plural, as in more than one aeon.  In geological terms, an aeon is a billion years.  And the conventional interpretation of "aeon" is along those lines.  Guys, there are a lot more than 740 Sovereign-class Reapers.  A whole buncha lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon
Definition, a long time


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aeon
First definition, a long time

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/aeon
First definition, a long time

Not exactly difinitive proof they ment a billion years.

In the Free Dictionary, I show the first definition as "an immeasurably long period of time; age."  Would you prefer the Catalyst be referring to time immeasurable?  The second definition is from astronomy: "a period of one thousand million years"--a billion years.  Since we're talking about a space opera here, I think the astronomy definition is even more pertinent.  An aeon also means a billion years in cosmology--a very pertinent academic discipline here, especially given Star-jar's pronouncements.

So I do see your point, but I'm sticking with a billion years.

Modifié par Aquilas, 27 juin 2012 - 09:18 .

[Goodwood]

Talhydras nailed it.

Thank you for that write-up, it was an enjoyable read (and more reason to give Mac/Casey the finger right back).

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Heeden wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

As someone who dabbles in military strategy and tactics (most commonly viewed through the lens of historical research), I could list a thousand and one reasons why a so-called "conventional" war against the Reapers could be winnable without the Crucible. It wouldn't be easy, and it wouldn't be quick, but such a thing is very possible. The Reapers have already demonstrated both understanding and blithe ignorance to Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and I have no qualms in saying that Tzu, at least, would have known that victory was within the realm of the possible.

Tactically speaking everyone in the ME universe is completely retarded, lining up space-ships as if it's an 18th century naval battle then proceeding with a ground war is the sort of stupidity you'd expect from wh40k (and even then they make a better job of space-battles).

Judging by the descriptions of battle tactics and ship capabilities in the lore, it seems that capital ships at least behave much like 18th century naval ships, therefore 18th century naval tactics would not be completely stupid, as those tactics were in the first place devised to work with the capabilities of the ships.

Drednoughts and larger capital ships in particular, as explained in the lore, have to line up in a battle formation simply because they are slow and unmaneuverable and otherwise cannot fire their main weapon. Maybe they are like 18th century naval battles because 22nd century starship tech and design is comparable to 18th century naval ship capabilities.

Velocithon wrote...

Given the possibility of a Reaper ally in upcoming DLC, don't you think that would change things? I mean, suddenly that makes a conventional victory a lot more plausible. Add in the fact future DLC might do the same, why not have it so, if you have high enough EMS and all the right DLC, the "reject" ending will turn into a conventional victory ending.

That is a fantastic idea. It might actually offer us a way to circumvent the three endings!

[CaliGuy033]

KDD-0063 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

True, but that doesn't mean making conventional victory to be completely impossible--in fact, irrelevent, is not bad writing. And it goes against what ME3 was advertised: there is no reaper off button.

I've yet to hear a single good argument for why making it impossible is "bad writing."  People just kind of throw those words out there without any real basis.  Don't like a decision the writers made? "Bad writing."

[Ridwan]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Conventional victory is possible.

Well, no. It's not. As evidence by the fact that you lose.

So...

<.<

>.>

Yeah.

We lost cause the writers decided we should lose.

Umm....I hate to break it to you, but the writers get to decide whether conventional victory is possible.

Given that, you know, none of this is actually real, and we actually have no means of evaluating what is "possible" outside of what is created by the content creators.

What's that got to do with my post? I already wrote that we lost cause it was the writers choice.

My point is that every single thing that happens in the game is "because of the writers' choice."  You realize that you don't actually get to make true decisions in the game, right?  You get to select from predetermined choices that the writers gave you.

I just don't see the point in mentioning how it's "because of the writers."  Of course it is.  Everything that happens in a video game, story-wise, is because of the writers.  

The idea is if you took the writers out of the equation and let the things run its course, would conventional victory be possible? Damn straight it would, at a high cost in manpower sure, but we could still kick their ass and win this war without having to suck up to some space kid.

[Qeylis]

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.

*Spoiler*

Of course a conventional victory was possible.  Soveriegns shields went down because we killed 1 of his indoctrinated minions.  If we had destroyed the Citidel, and with it, the Command and Control unit, the Reapers would have been in Chaos (they hate that stuff) and their extremely finicky, easy to malfunction shield would probably have gone down.

Saren was nothing to Soveriegn, the Star Child is everything to every Reaper.  That would have been a massive blow that no other cycle had ever attempted because they loved their precious Citidel, and they also thought it was the Catalyst.  

The largest fleet the galaxy had ever seen was sitting in Earth orbit, waiting for something to happen.  I could see them holding their own in the background as the Star Child explained that he kills organics so that synthetics won't kill organics.  If I could have called fire on the Citidel, I could have ended him, and the fleet would have had a decent chance to end the Reapers.

I'm glad your trying to understand this, but I still feel like the Defiance option was an F U from you guys.

[IanPolaris]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

I've yet to hear a single good argument for why making it impossible is "bad writing."  People just kind of throw those words out there without any real basis.  Don't like a decision the writers made? "Bad writing."

Well a poster up above gave a very good and detailed explaination why according to Mass Effect's own technical codex, defeating the reapers was NOT impossible if one used a little (ok a lot) of out of the box thinking.  More importantly Shepard and his crew has made a career out of doing the impossible.  It's one of the major themes of Mass Effect.  Ignoring all that is in fact bad writing.

-Polaris

[LegendaryBlade]

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 it was how it was resented. It was SO BE IT, fade to black, fade in, you apparently lost. It's not affected by your EMS, it's the shortest ending, and it feels shoehorned in.

It's still the second best ending, right behind Control

[Huitzil]

CaliGuy033 wrote...


I've yet to hear a single good argument for why making it impossible is "bad writing."  People just kind of throw those words out there without any real basis.  Don't like a decision the writers made? "Bad writing."

It is bad writing because it contradicts the rest of the three games factually, thematically, and emotionally. 

[withneelandi]

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 would agree that the ending in it's current more fleshed out form works because not a single one of the options comes without quite heavy and unpleasant consequences.

One of the issues I had with the games conclusion in its original form was that it asked the player to make a moral judgment between 3 options that were all in some way objectionable on a moral level.

Destroy requires the sacrifice of an entire species in the Geth - Controll asks the player to collaborate with an entity that has systematically wiped out countless civilisations and synthesis asks the player to impose an entire new state of being on all living creatures allbeit in the name of peace and harmony.

Implicit in that sort of choice has to be the option to reject the premise entirely but unless option also comes with serious consequences it becomes a "get out of jail free card" which allows the player to avoid making a hard choice. With reject the player has the option to say "I reject your premise" but must also face the consequences of perhaps placing their own moral integrity ahead of the "greater good".

I still don't know if the reject is the "right" choice but I do think that for the end to work on an intelectual and philisophical level it needs to be there and we need to suffer if we chose it.

I have been critical of the end of mass effect but what it does well is to challenge the players concept of the sort of choices we make in a video game. Bioware rpg's have long been based on a moral spectrum which is in a straight line, light or dark side, paragon or renegade but at mass effect 3's conclusion we are asked to look at 4 options, all with severe down sides, its easy to go through the game always picking the blue or red option and not thinking about why we make those choices, but at the end of me3 there is no "good" or "bad", no "paragon" or "renegade" just shades of grey.

[LateNightSalami]

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 answered you once in regards to this in another forum post but it seems more pertinent here. The problem with not having the possibility of a conventional victory is that you need a Maguffin or a Deus Ex Machina to end it. This is what we ended up getting but this is not the biggest sin of the lack of a conventional option. No, the biggest sin is that the current endings still have an inherent nihilistic theme to them. All of the choices that you made throughout the games are meaningless in regards to the conclusion. The only choice that matters is the final choice at the end. This is explicitly what we as players stated that we didn't want and what Casey went on record saying would not happen. We never got the chance to see the culmination of all of our choices and struggles play out in the end. The character that we built throughout the series was not shown to carry us through the conclusion. Instead we got a final choice that essentially ignored all of the choices we made up to that point. This did not change and no superficial EMS value that slightly alters these endings would reflect what we wanted because the current choices tehmselves throw out the concept of having those other factors matter to begin with.

I hope I described it properly but I feel like not many on Bioware's end seem to understand this fundamental problem. It is like they are operating on a completely different paradigm than the players and we simply cannot understand each other. I think this is another problem that is so jarring on the player's end. There just seems to be a disconnect that we cannot overcome.

[Fdmatt]

This should've been Shep with the Normandy.

Modifié par Fdmatt, 27 juin 2012 - 09:28 .