505 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

but shepard didnt have a radio.

Yes he did.  Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to talk with Admiral Anderson when he first arrived on the citadel.

-Polaris

[Geneaux486]

Zulama wrote...

D24O wrote...

Destroy is only somewhat insulting if the next cycle HAS to use the Crucible, because of the meta-textual implications of that. If not, if they can win on their own, it's actually a really good ending.

Yeah If Shepard could make peace between the Geth and Quarians, why woundn't the future do the same.

The Geth were anomalous to the cycles, the first known race of synthetics that wound up being peaceful.

Also, why do people still insist that using the Crucible is somehow submitting to the Catalyst?  It was already apparent in the original endings and explained in greater detail in the EC that the Reapers had nothing to do wtith the Crucible and had thought they had long since destroyed the plans for it.  It's not the Catalyst's weapon, and by extension the three possible functions of the device are not presented by the Catalyst either, merely explained by him.  Furthermore, the reason the Catalyst explains the choices to you is because the Crucible proved that organics had achieved a level of superiority that the Catalyst was forced to acknowlege.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 28 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

thefallen2far wrote...

Normandy was able to: what?  It was able to; what?  Shoot through the Reaper's hull and destroy the Reaper. So the Reapers themselves are very flawed.  And a giant worm has the strength to crush them, so they're actually very weak all things considered.  That's without advances in technologies like Thanix cannon upgrades which most of the larger battle cruisers would be equipped with. 

They destroyed soverign AFTER soverign's shields went down.  With shields up they couldnt defeat soverign.  Shepard defeats saren and the mindshock shuts down soverign's systems, including thier shields.  this is super simple.  You sabotaged the enemy and killed them when thier defenses were down.  it wasnt something that would work against every reaper.

Also you COMPLETELY missed the part where Destroyers are tiny compared to soverign class reapers.  You killed some destroyers, but those arent true reapers, they're lesser fleets.  They even explain the difference between these classificatiosn of reapers in the ending.

thefallen2far wrote...

Despite all of that, that's all just plot devices.  The bottom line is.... it's a fictional world.   It garnered an audience from the previous games who could be successful despite being told you'd fail.  You had a suicide mission where everyone told you not everyone was coming back, but everyone came back.  You defied odds, and succeeded.  On your own terms based on how well you did in the game.  That's the audience it gathered by having that ending in the last game.  This game has a different ending that appeals to the nihilistic "what's the point.  We're going to fail anyway, might as well go with crazy program" audience.  It's okay that you're okay with quitters as protagonists, but I think that people that appreciated the character prior to this ending have the right to feel insulted with the "eff you.  It's Star Jar or nothing" ending.

The point of the game was to tell a story, not give the audience blowjobs.  Defeating the collectors was about on par with defeating a single soverign class reaper for shepard.  A threat isnt a threat if its diminished by escalating power scales.  This isnt DBZ.  Making all the reapers stupid and weak would have made everything that came before it pointless.  Its really crummy storytelling to make an enemy weaker just so they can be defeatable by conventional means.  Do you know how real wars work?  You can shoot a person but you cant shoot a tank, you can blow up a tank with a grenade but a grenade wont blow up an entire country.  thats what nuclear weapons are for, and thats why the crucible looks like an atomic bomb.  Tanks and Infantry cant beat an air strike, guy.  Thats the entire point of the reapers since the first game.  Y'know, the game that started the story and established the fiction?  It would have been childish and stupid.  "entitlement" has never been in stronger quotes than it is right now.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

IanPolaris wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

but shepard didnt have a radio.

Yes he did.  Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to talk with Admiral Anderson when he first arrived on the citadel.

-Polaris

Okay yes but thats short range communication.

Its like the difference between walkie talkies and a telephone.  That scene implied that hackett contacts shepard via the console, not via headset.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Your sig is awesome.

thanks  
(i think it works REALLY WELL in this topic.  he he he)

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 28 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[Ryzaki]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

but shepard didnt have a radio.

there was a radio at the console that opened the arms though.


too bad shepard went up that elevator.  now she cant give a pointless speech to dieing people  (Thats Hackett's job)

What.

That doesn't even MAKE any sense. Why would Hackett use the Radio in the middle of the Citadel (an area of the Citadel no one even KNOWS?) Shep clearly has a radio on that he communicates with Hackett and Anderson on. Stop grasping at straws. Hackett clearly contacts Shepard (I believe the first word out of his mouth is Commander then Shepard) the only way he could know it was Shepard is if he was contacting...drumroll Shep's comm system!

(Hell one of the most WTF parts of that seqence is that he/she has a communicator working.)

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[sheppard7]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

but shepard didnt have a radio.

Yes he did.  Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to talk with Admiral Anderson when he first arrived on the citadel.

-Polaris

Okay yes but thats short range communication.

Its like the difference between walkie talkies and a telephone.  That scene implied that hackett contacts shepard via the console, not via headset.

Hackett tells Shepard nothing is happening while Shep was sitting next to Anderson too. That doesn't seem like the console to me.

Modifié par sheppard7, 28 juin 2012 - 12:57 .

[v TricKy v]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

The fact BioWare is so petty about it just shows that we-- the fans-- won in the end. We got the ending we asked for. We were able to defy the Catalyst. We did all we could to stop the Reapers, but it wasn't enough. I don't believe in some "tweet-cannon" by Gamble. In fact, I've completely dismissed Gamble as a reliable source of information.

Liara said the Crucible didn't work. Why would the next cycle build it after hearing that? Even if they did, they may have made modifications that allow for the destruction of only the Reapers. Perhaps they used it to open the Relays to darkspace and performed a pre-emptive strike on the Reapers.

So even if they forcefully insist that Crucible may have been used... but that doesn't mean RGB was used. I still think it's BS, trying to sabotage the ending, but I'll take anything over Synthesis. Refusal actually gives the most "realistic" ending to the ME series, and I think other than destroy, fits Shep's character and the overall themes of the series the best.

this actually
I will definitely take that one on my paragon femshep.
My sig says it all. That sentence gets spoken when you destroy the collector base. 

[Eire Icon]

MuKen wrote...

 
This is the first time in the series that Bioware has said one of your player choices is the "wrong" one. You're supposed to pick one of these other three, and if you don't, you played the game wrong.

Wtf? There isn't supposed to be a wrong way to be Shepard, it's your Shepard. That's the founding theme of this series. 

Morinth - remember her ?

[Geneaux486]

v TricKy v wrote...
My sig says it all. That sentence gets spoken when you destroy the collector base. 

Refusing to use your own weapon because the enemy agrees with you is letting fear compromise who you are.

[miekojn]

"So be it, Jedi."
Then I thought: OH CRAP.
But nothing really happened. I guess it was the attack of the magicarps...
And then everyone's dead, and Liara thought she was princess Leia. "Help me, alien. You're our only hope."
So uhm, yeah. I thought it was a bit short, but I actually liked the concept of it, it just needs more cutscenes. I also discovered you can't shoot Starbrat anymore without him getting mad and kill you. Oops.

[BadgerladDK]

Honestly, I laughed when I shot starbrat and got that ending, thought it was a well played little tip of the hat to the "I want none of these choices" sentiments. Rejecting them and losing is actually just fine with me, by then you're long past the point of no return, and the silly catalyst is your only shot. Rejecting that is fine, but you are dooming the current cycle to give the next one a shot. But make no mistake: You did lose. And that was your choice.

Could have used a bit more filler, yeah. But counting it as losing... That's fine. You did.

[Dusen]

I'm still mad that Bioware refused to add any dialogue with the Catalyst/starbrat about the peace between the synthetic Geth and the organic Quarians, or about EDI's torid love affair with joker. Honestly, what else were those scenes and story arcs for if not to establish a precedent that the catalyst is wrong and should rethink everything? Instead, nothing is mentioned about them, effectively make them useless parts of the story that did nothing to affect the end. That, for me, is too much ignore.

[thefallen2far]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
 They destroyed soverign AFTER soverign's shields went down. With shields up they couldnt defeat soverign. Shepard defeats saren and the mindshock shuts down soverign's systems, including thier shields. this is super simple. You sabotaged the enemy and killed them when thier defenses were down. it wasnt something that would work against every reaper.

Also you COMPLETELY missed the part where Destroyers are tiny compared to soverign class reapers.  You killed some destroyers, but those arent true reapers, they're lesser fleets.  They even explain the difference between these classificatiosn of reapers in the ending.

What is your definition of "conventional victory"?  My definition is a war of tactics and exploiting the weaknesses of your enemy to attain victory. It sounds like you think "conventional victory" is to put your arms to your sides and run at the enemy screaming and whoever is still standing after the collision is the winner. Yes, if you're an idiot and you attack the strongest defense of the enemy, you loose. I'd like to think that a tactician would know that's a really bad way to fight an enemy.

Now, why did Sovereign build an aramada of offensive robot ships for a blitz surprise attack of the fleet defending the citadel if his kinetic barriers are all powerful and omnipotent? You might think it's because you needed to take over the galaxy, but the only reason he was headed there was to open the gateway to deep space for the Reapers to show up. Because it wasn't. In fact, Saren said that if it tried to assault a surprised defensive, unfortified, unsupported at that time, fleet, it would be shredded to pieces. Powerful, does not mean all powerful. If I thought they couldn't be beaten, I never would have played 1 or 2 multiple times. I'd have just acknowledged it as a basic shooter for nihilists and never bother with it again.

You coincidentally forgot that because either you didn't play Mass Effect 1 or you want the Reapers to be this god-like, powerful enemy that you can't win against so you'd have have to deal with by being it's "bottom" and make an arbitrary decision presented to you that has no merit or logic. That's what you like. I don't. It's as simple as that. I like the older games. This one was crap and it ended like crap IMHO. And slapping me in the face with an insulting clip basically saying "you fail" is in no way appreciated and I don't have to be thankful for it, and a negative response to it is justified.

The point of the game was to tell a story, not give the audience blowjobs. Defeating the collectors was about on par with defeating a single soverign class reaper for shepard.  A threat isnt a threat if its diminished by escalating power scales.  This isnt DBZ.  Making all the reapers stupid and weak would have made everything that came before it pointless.  Its really crummy storytelling to make an enemy weaker just so they can be defeatable by conventional means.  Do you know how real wars work?  You can shoot a person but you cant shoot a tank, you can blow up a tank with a grenade but a grenade wont blow up an entire country.  thats what nuclear weapons are for, and thats why the crucible looks like an atomic bomb. Tanks and Infantry cant beat an air strike, guy. Thats the entire point of the reapers since the first game.  Y'know, the game that started the story and established the fiction? It would have been childish and stupid. "entitlement"has never been in stronger quotes than it is right now.

ONE SHIP destroyed the Collectors. Without loosing a single crew member.  ONE SHIP.  If that's equal to ONE Soverign class Reaper, how do you think they're omnipotent?

The problem isn't "we don't want to dumb them down", the problem is in MAKING THEM UNDEFEATABLE in a story whose major theme is about OVERCOMING adversity. That's a plot device that was added in the last game. I know this is hard for you to understand because I insulted your Reaper "god", but conventional victory is not like "Braveheart" where a bunch of people in paint and swords run at each other for until their infront of the next guy and tries to kill the other guy. It's tactics. What are the tactics provided? Surprise assault, unified front, controlling escape, studied weaknesses, condensed unlimited resources, advanced technology that with insider information from converted enemy forces plus confiscated enemy technologies provided by the enemy. That's enough for any victory. Plus, there's more to conventional victory than that, your limited understanding or imagination notwithstnding, it is possible. You don't want it to be possibile because you're a nihilist. That's fine. The audience of the previous games wasn't a requirement. So you're limiting your fanbase to those that like to loose. And you get a negative reaction. What about this equasion do you not understand?

Now it's obvious you like the game. The It's FOR you. The purpose of a story is to entertain. It didn't. It also insulted its audience... Charlie Sheen tried that last year in Detroit.... a looooooot of people hated it.

Now you may be frustrated and call people "entitled". I in turn can call you a shill. Neither is correct. I'm not saying that they have to make the change to fix what I don't like about it. I just don't like it. I'm declaring I didn't like it, I don't appreciate being insulted and I'm stating why I'm not buying their products anymore. If they do, change it, my opinion will change. That's not entitled. That's consumerism. It's the basis of the relationship between developer and player. You [I can't confirm, but am fairly certain] are not in any way associated with the production of the game, your just the target audience of who this was for. Nihilists and fatalists. And that's fine that you don't believe in overcoming impossible odds or that the will of man can "win". In fact you probably wished that there was no way that you could leave the suicide mission in 2 without leaving people behind. It's fine that you do. The theme shifted for the ending and response is not positive. It's as simple as that.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 28 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[AtlasMickey]

 You want to hear the truth?

It couldn't have ended any other way.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 28 juin 2012 - 08:16 .

[IxSITHxI]

This is all they have to do to please everyone who actually cares about this game and series...

First, with the Leviathan DLC coming, it allows a Reaper to join forces with Shepard. Now then, this is the perfect opurtunity for them to please the people (95% of the fans) who hated the R G B endings. All they have to do is have it set that if you get this Reapers aid early enough, and you rally the whole galaxy (quarians and geth, cure genophage etc etc) it should be plausible to beat the Reapers conventionally. Leviathan would be able to give the victory fleet advanced weapons and defences as well as tactical data on the other Reapers. With this, choosing the F U god child option should allow the player to get the best possible ending. Your forces, with Reaper augmentation, should be able to defeat the much smaller Reaper fleet. With the Relays and the Citadel in still working condition, this victory fleet would be able to crush any smaller pockets of Reaper resistence. Shepard, not being forced into the BS RGB endings would be rescued by the Normandy, and after being hospitalised, is able to live on with his/her LI. They then show this in a CUTSCENE not a CHEAP ASS SLIDESHOW. And in Tali's case we see her effin face.

So in this one perfect ending, in which you have to do literally everything right and take the time and effort, we do get a happy ending. We get to watch the Normandy blasting Reapers with Turian, Asari, Salarian, Krogan, Batarian, Quarian, Geth, Rachni, Volus, and Elchor ( I think I got them all(the main ones at least)) forces in space and on the ground. Then we get to see the celebrations and what not *cough*starwars ending*cough*. Shepard settles down, and the game is set up for future DLC/Games. So everyone, the fans, and Bioware win.

With the FU god child option, failing to get EVERY SINGLE THING done right should still end in with the cycle. However, the only difference would be them showing, IN A CUTSCENE, the victory fleet going down in a blaze of hellfire and glory. It should show Palaven and the Turians and Asaris and Krogans going down fighting. The way it is now however is truly a slap in the face as it ends with " SO BE IT " cuts to bunker "Liaras monologue".

NOTE: Anyone sayin we cant have a happy ending clearly did not see the BS Synthesis ending wherein Kasumi , the DLC side character from ME 2 has the happiest ending. (Gamble confirmed that the Greybox brought Keiji back to life in synthesis.....SPACE MAGIC in full force in Synthesis wherein the Reaper are our Fwiends)

Besides all of that ^^ the only other thing that needs changing would be the med evac scene, becuase theres no way in hell that Harbinger would have given them the time to evac them. He stares at the Normandy for a solid 3-4 minutes. There is no reasson AT ALL (i guarentee none of you can give me a reasson I cant dispute) that Harbinger did NOT KILL them all.

The simple fix for ^^ is to have other ships attacking Harbinger as they get evacuated. Or another team hitting the other side or ANYTHING they would pull Harbingers attention. Sure it would still be a weak excuse, but its better than " AWWW LOOK AT SHEPARD AND TALI. THEY SOO CUTE. IMMA LET THEM GO FOR NOW"

You do all of this BioWare ^ and youll win over the fans that hated your RGB endings. Youll open up room for new DLC and Future games, with the same races. It gives fans the happy ending wherein Shepard lives and the galaxy survives intact. If you want your HARDCORE fans back BioWare, do this. If you want us to forget you leave what you have in the EC

The choice is yours BioWare...

[Gravbh]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

thefallen2far wrote...

Normandy was able to: what?  It was able to; what?  Shoot through the Reaper's hull and destroy the Reaper. So the Reapers themselves are very flawed.  And a giant worm has the strength to crush them, so they're actually very weak all things considered.  That's without advances in technologies like Thanix cannon upgrades which most of the larger battle cruisers would be equipped with. 

They destroyed soverign AFTER soverign's shields went down.  With shields up they couldnt defeat soverign.  Shepard defeats saren and the mindshock shuts down soverign's systems, including thier shields.  this is super simple.  You sabotaged the enemy and killed them when thier defenses were down.  it wasnt something that would work against every reaper.

Also you COMPLETELY missed the part where Destroyers are tiny compared to soverign class reapers.  You killed some destroyers, but those arent true reapers, they're lesser fleets.  They even explain the difference between these classificatiosn of reapers in the ending.

thefallen2far wrote...

Despite all of that, that's all just plot devices.  The bottom line is.... it's a fictional world.   It garnered an audience from the previous games who could be successful despite being told you'd fail.  You had a suicide mission where everyone told you not everyone was coming back, but everyone came back.  You defied odds, and succeeded.  On your own terms based on how well you did in the game.  That's the audience it gathered by having that ending in the last game.  This game has a different ending that appeals to the nihilistic "what's the point.  We're going to fail anyway, might as well go with crazy program" audience.  It's okay that you're okay with quitters as protagonists, but I think that people that appreciated the character prior to this ending have the right to feel insulted with the "eff you.  It's Star Jar or nothing" ending.

The point of the game was to tell a story, not give the audience blowjobs.  Defeating the collectors was about on par with defeating a single soverign class reaper for shepard.  A threat isnt a threat if its diminished by escalating power scales.  This isnt DBZ.  Making all the reapers stupid and weak would have made everything that came before it pointless.  Its really crummy storytelling to make an enemy weaker just so they can be defeatable by conventional means.  Do you know how real wars work?  You can shoot a person but you cant shoot a tank, you can blow up a tank with a grenade but a grenade wont blow up an entire country.  thats what nuclear weapons are for, and thats why the crucible looks like an atomic bomb.  Tanks and Infantry cant beat an air strike, guy.  Thats the entire point of the reapers since the first game.  Y'know, the game that started the story and established the fiction?  It would have been childish and stupid.  "entitlement" has never been in stronger quotes than it is right now.

You came out guns blazing with that comment, but I gotta say, well said. I think the "beat the reapers conventionally" view is the new IT. Not quite as ridiculous, but it's up there.

[thefallen2far]

AtlasMickey wrote...

 You want to hear the truth?

It couldn't have ended any other way.

errrrrrr.  Yeah it could.

[OhoniX]

You don't get a "mission complete" because you failed to complete the mission. Is this serious? Should there be a thread about how they don't have a proper "shoot yourself in the head at the begining of the game" ending? You refuse to defeat the Reapers, the Reapers win. Everyone you've ever known dies, . Presumably, since you never activated the Crucible, the Normandy stayed in system until it was destroyed by the Reapers.

[Anti-killer]

Last time I checked, a Turian fleet jumped right into a reaper force and destroyed several captial class reapers...

[Bomma72]

Larg_Kellein wrote...

Honestly, I laughed when I shot starbrat and got that ending, thought it was a well played little tip of the hat to the "I want none of these choices" sentiments. Rejecting them and losing is actually just fine with me, by then you're long past the point of no return, and the silly catalyst is your only shot. Rejecting that is fine, but you are dooming the current cycle to give the next one a shot. But make no mistake: You did lose. And that was your choice.

Could have used a bit more filler, yeah. But counting it as losing... That's fine. You did.

Select the dialog option it is much better.

[Bomma72]

Geneaux486 wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...
My sig says it all. That sentence gets spoken when you destroy the collector base. 

Refusing to use your own weapon because the enemy agrees with you is letting fear compromise who you are.

Refusing to use your own weapon because it will distroy all your principles and distroy who you are anyway is a win any day in my book. 

Plus you the player wins in the next cycle.