I do? Standing up and walking based on biological contingencies is quite different from aiming a firearm with precision from a safe distance out.
Have you had experience to know that?
Each individual is different. As strong willed as femshep is and as well trained as she is to use a weapon, she wouldn't have a problem hitting that tube
Have you had experience to know that?
Each individual is different. As strong willed as femshep is and as well trained as she is to use a weapon, she wouldn't have a problem hitting that tube
She did, though. The tube didn't pop until she got closer, even after hitting around the same spot repeatedly before walking forward.
I don't know the reason why Bioware set it up that way, but I would ask them if they would shoot at something that blows up in their face or shoot at the target from further away and get the same result.
Every individual is different, I agree, but there are limitations.
And those limitations are not the same for everyone. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean someone else can't. A lot of it has to with how strong willed that individual is.
I don't know the reason why Bioware set it up that way, but I would ask them if they would shoot at something that blows up in their face or shoot at the target from further away and get the same result.
And those limitations are not the same for everyone. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean someone else can't. A lot of it has to with how strong willed that individual is.
I'd argue that both possibilities might've not been available in the scenario to achieve the same result.
The only way that possibility would not be available is if the Catalyst doesn't mention destroy or the player's ems is low enough that only control is the only option available
Dizziness and disorientation from excessive blood/fluid loss is a pretty common biological hurdle, though, even for Shepard.
Maybe so, but it still comes down to how strong willed the individual is. Some may just give up while others will keep going until there's nothing left
There's a difference between keeping Shepard alive and keeping Shepard's aim at a comparable level of accuracy.
If Shepard is able to maintain her balance while walking she would have enough in her to hit the tube without having to be up close and personal with it.
Maybe so, but it still comes down to how strong willed the individual is. Some may just give up while others will keep going until there's nothing left
If Shepard is able to maintain her balance while walking she would have enough in her to hit the tube without having to be up close and personal with it.
It was done for teh dramaz and teh feelz.
She's firing a mini-rail gun whose rounds apparently travel at subsonic velocities. lol. Now get out of Mac's movie.
The ending choices weren't treated as being equal options. The lead writers intended for Synthesis to be the best of the lot. The problem they faced was that through the majority of all three games Shepard was out to destroy the Reapers. It's only in the last 5 minutes of the game that players are presented with other options for dealing with them. There was also the issue of the Reapers being responsible for the mass extinction of multiple space-faring species, having annihilated billions of people in Shepard's own cycle, and being directly responsible for the deaths of some of Shepard's companions. Without there being some negative consequences tacked onto Destroy, there wasn't going to be much incentive for many players to do anything but kill them. So the deaths of EDI and the Geth are there to make you at least consider Synthesis, and for good measure Shepard either dies or gets a slight hint of having survived in the rubble.
The ending choices weren't treated as being equal options. The lead writers intended for Synthesis to be the best of the lot. The problem they faced was that through the majority of all three games Shepard was out to destroy the Reapers. It's only in the last 5 minutes of the game that players are presented with other options for dealing with them. There was also the issue of the Reapers being responsible for the mass extinction of multiple space-faring species, having annihilated billions of people in Shepard's own cycle, and being directly responsible for the deaths of some of Shepard's companions. Without there being some negative consequences tacked onto Destroy, there wasn't going to be much incentive for many players to do anything but kill them. So the deaths of EDI and the Geth are there to make you at least consider Synthesis, and for good measure Shepard either dies or gets a slight hint of having survived in the rubble.
Personally i agree that was their thinking. Personally i think trying to blindside players at the last minute rather than introducing options properly and then trying to artificially load one ending with excessively negative consequences because you think more people might choose that is utterly wrong.
Personally i agree that was their thinking. Personally i think trying to blindside players at the last minute rather than introducing options properly and then trying to artificially load one ending with excessively negative consequences because you think more people might choose that is utterly wrong.
How did they not introduce the options properly? You had 3 games worth of talking about synthesis and control, they may have been painted negatively, but it's not like these ideas were introduced at the last second.
Personally i agree that was their thinking. Personally i think trying to blindside players at the last minute rather than introducing options properly and then trying to artificially load one ending with excessively negative consequences because you think more people might choose that is utterly wrong.
Credit to MrFob in this thread:
The developers themselves made it very clear. One need only to take a look at the game files with ME3Explorer's sequence editor:
How did they not introduce the options properly? You had 3 games worth of talking about synthesis and control, they may have been painted negatively, but it's not like these ideas were introduced at the last second.
Only time anything remotely synthesis came up was an indoctrinated villain in me1. As for control it certainly came up in me3, via an indoctrinated antagonist who's method you weren't able to support. Nothing came up when crucible plans were discovered or at any point during the building of said device. Shockingly shoddy.
Regardless of who originally supported control or synthesis, these aren't new ideas introduced in the last 5 minutes of the series.
I do agree however that at no point are we led to believe the crucible can do anything else besides destroy the Reapers. But then again do we ever really know exactly what the crucible does/is, a power source? a weapon?
Prior to EC, I was under the impression that Destroy would only destroy Reaper code and tech. Meaning EDI, built around Reaper technology, would die. Even if she could be rebuilt, she would not be the same. Therefore: dead. The geth had Reaper code. But they were more than that. Even if the Reaper code was destroyed, there would be something left and they could rebuild; they were already headed towards this when they turned to the Reapers and were offered a shortcut. So in theory, they could survive.
After EC, I have no idea. Unless they're living in quarian suits until they can rebuild their platforms/consensus/superstructure, I'd have expected them to at least be mentioned.
Honestly, the whole thing still feels like sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice to me. That said, if Shepard had died in Destroy (regardless of whether or not they lived in Control/Synthesis) and the geth had been fine, even with EDI dying too, I'd be more inclined to believe things weren't so stacked against this option.
Retour en haut
