222 réponses à ce sujet

[NM_Che56]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Master Che wrote...
I'd almost argue that this would be very unconventional.

I suppose it would be. 

Shep riding on the back of a reaper going "yee-haw" would turn a few heads. 

[Carlthestrange]

Master Che wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Master Che wrote...
I'd almost argue that this would be very unconventional.

I suppose it would be. 

Shep riding on the back of a reaper going "yee-haw" would turn a few heads. 

 I was thinking more of Shepard leading a fleet into battle armed with Reaper style cannons.

[ArchDuck]

Master Che wrote...

Their story. Not yours. And now you have a new way to fail...if you consider the hopes of another cycle learning from your mistake and defeating the Reapers a total failure.

Good thing they changed their mind on that (AKA lied through their teeth). I quote:

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much as we are anyway.”
Mike Gambel

“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different based on what you would do in those situations.”
- Casey Hudson

“Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”
- Casey Hudson


"...we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them...  We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player decide what your story is.”
- Casey Hudson

“There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it.”
- Casey Hudson


Darn, why did people think they were going to have a say? A choice in shaping the end, if you will?

Modifié par ArchDuck, 28 juin 2012 - 04:20 .

[Norwood06]

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

[CroGamer002]

Because convectional victory is impossible.

[Grubas]

LKx wrote...

I'm totally ok with a defeat in the refuse option, however Shepard should have reacted in some way like:
...
- Shepard tell Hackett about the catalyst's nature (at least it would be knowledge for future cycles), and call in a nuke to the Citadel core
...

It would vastly improve the refusal ending.

Problem is you cant "just nuke" the citadel.

1.) People dont know how it works.

2.) How would they know where to hit it?

3.) Its the same as the Relays, you need at least something with the power of an asteroid.  

4.) Also we dont know what would happen to the Reapers. Judging by their actions, i would assume the catalyst just gives the orders, and they act on their own. Destroying the catalyst might trigger a rebuild-the-citadel program. 
Catalyst might convert itself inside a reaper. 



 

Modifié par Grubas, 28 juin 2012 - 04:20 .

[SilentWolfie]

Mesina2 wrote...

Because convectional victory is impossible.

It's actually very easy to retcon the entire thing for the fans actually. Artistic integrity got in the way, unfortunately.

[JShepppp]

You're offended too easily op. not everything is a bioware conspiracy. At least they showed your sacrifice was not in vain.

[Pitznik]

When Shepard is talking with Catalyst he knows very well that Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, that is why they put all their hopes on Crucible, even if they don't even know what it does, they're that desperate. So Shepard refusing to use Crucible when he finally can do it doesn't make any sense. Game developers usually don't give you option to do something completely pointless, but since fans insisted, they let them have it. But to no surprise it is not really an ending, but rather bit more extended game over screen.

It is pretty funny, people were in denial about Reapers being impossible to beat without Catalyst, but when they finally got to see with their own eyes that is just simply not happening, instead of finally realizing their mistake, they felt insulted by developers.

[Steel Dancer]

Refusal = Lose isn't an insult.

There are thousands upon thousands of Capital class Reaper vessels (seriously: a billion years at an average of 50,000 years per cycle yields 20,000 Sovereign level reapers, plus who knows how many Destroyers and Occuli.) each of which needs 3 or 4 Dreadnaughts to beat, of which there are maybe... 200?

That battle's done, you cant win it.

The handling of that ending is however very poor, with no slides showing your side going down fighting or anything.

That said: shooting a hologram causing that end is kind of a "...yeah, ok... whatever." moment though.

[nitefyre410]

 I don't mind losing and the cycle continuing as outcome of Refuse... what I don't like is the effort and how they handled it.. 
It should have been more like Braveheart or 300... instead how they did it was insulting not that fact that they did it. 

[NM_Che56]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Carlthestrange wrote...

Master Che wrote...
I'd almost argue that this would be very unconventional.

I suppose it would be. 

Shep riding on the back of a reaper going "yee-haw" would turn a few heads. 

 I was thinking more of Shepard leading a fleet into battle armed with Reaper style cannons.

Fail Because Boring

Oh...and didn't we kill conventional about 1 hour into Eden Prime during ME1? You know...getting zapped by the monolith, seeing visions, having a mind meld with a hot asari...

Gave it last rites when we spared the Rachni Queen (assuming you did that, but you had the option).

We buried "conventional" when we were BLOWN TO BITS, and reconstituted by Cerberus in ME2, used a genetically engineered super Krogan and recruited a frickin GETH.

We peed all up on its grave R Kelly Style when we used a Thresher Maw to kill a Reaper, entered the Geth Consensus...oh, and found the last of the Pro-hicans (Javik) and woke him up Encino Man style.

Yeah...I think the argument of "conventional warfare" being an option is HIIIII-LARIOUS!

Modifié par Master Che, 28 juin 2012 - 04:28 .

[Carlthestrange]

Master Che wrote...

Fail Because Boring

Oh...and didn't we kill conventional about 1 hour into Eden Prime during ME1? You know...getting zapped by the monolith, seeing visions, having a mind meld with a hot asari...

Gave it last rites when we spared the Rachni Queen (assuming you did that, but you had the option).

We buried "conventional" when we were BLOWN TO BITS, and reconstituted by Cerberus in ME2, used a genetically engineered super Krogan and recruited a frickin GETH.

We peed all up on its grave R Kelly Style when we used a Thresher Maw to kill a Reaper, entered the Geth Consensus...oh, and found the last of the Pro-hicans (Javik) and woke him up Encino Man style.

Yeah...I think the argument of "conventional warfare" being an option is HIIIII-LARIOUS!

...I see where you are coming from. Hehe.

[Alien1099]

d-boy15 wrote...

the same reason why destroy kill geth and EDI. if they have it like that most peoples would choose
that ending and never ever consider other choice.

Who gives a **** which endings get chosen and which don't? Do you really think the developers sit down and say, " OK guys we really need to nudge the players into an even distribution for people choosing among the different options at the very last minute of a single player game."

Modifié par Alien1099, 28 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[NM_Che56]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Fail Because Boring

Oh...and didn't we kill conventional about 1 hour into Eden Prime during ME1? You know...getting zapped by the monolith, seeing visions, having a mind meld with a hot asari...

Gave it last rites when we spared the Rachni Queen (assuming you did that, but you had the option).

We buried "conventional" when we were BLOWN TO BITS, and reconstituted by Cerberus in ME2, used a genetically engineered super Krogan and recruited a frickin GETH.

We peed all up on its grave R Kelly Style when we used a Thresher Maw to kill a Reaper, entered the Geth Consensus...oh, and found the last of the Pro-hicans (Javik) and woke him up Encino Man style.

Yeah...I think the argument of "conventional warfare" being an option is HIIIII-LARIOUS!

...I see where you are coming from. Hehe.

 

[Dendio1]

Allowing conventional victory over the reapers would be the most insulting, lore breaking thing they could do to the series. It would be worse than space magic. The entire threat of the reapers and the backbone of the series is dependent upon the reapers being an actual threat.

If all we need to do is band up and fight as one then the reapers have been nerfed beyond recognition. The entire crucible plot is rendered pointless, and we should have just allowed the reapers to come on over by the end of ME2.

[JBPBRC]

Dendio1 wrote...

It would be worse than space magic.

Whut.

[macrocarl]

Because the whole time during ME3 everyone is saying you can't win conventionally against the Reapers.

[sp0ck 06]

Norwood06 wrote...

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

This, for God's sakes will people just shut up about "conventional victory" and how "insulting" it is that it's not an option.  The story throughout all three games CLEARLY states we cannot beat the Reapers in pitched battle.

[Kreid]

Ok. You are told multiple times that conventional victory is impossible, you can see that even the whole fleet you gathered, with all species giving it all can't even match the Reapers stationed in Earth. Then you get an option to refuse using the super weapon you've been creating all this time and you get surprised when you lose?

[Darth Asriel]

To everyone who keeps saying we can't beat the Reapers conventionally, and that the crucible is our only hope. That's stupid. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE CRUCIBLE DOES!!!!! Not Hackett, not Liara, not the scientists puttin it together! They aren't even sure it's a weapon. Hackett states he doesn't know what it does, or how it works yet he's sure it's the key to defeating the Reapers..... How??? For all anyone in the game knows, it's a booby trap set by the Reapers! Yet it's our only hope? Stop spouting this nonsense as if it excuses the poor writing and a terrible idea.

[savionen]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

This, for God's sakes will people just shut up about "conventional victory" and how "insulting" it is that it's not an option.  The story throughout all three games CLEARLY states we cannot beat the Reapers in pitched battle.

Sovereign can't be killed. Collectors are impossible to defeat, Suicide Mission, etc. It's a video game. Not a real war. They could have easily made a conventional victory a logical ending, or a choice at an ending if you have an exceedingly high EMS score, but they decided against it. That's all there is.

[sp0ck 06]

savionen wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

This, for God's sakes will people just shut up about "conventional victory" and how "insulting" it is that it's not an option.  The story throughout all three games CLEARLY states we cannot beat the Reapers in pitched battle.

Sovereign can't be killed. Collectors are impossible to defeat, Suicide Mission, etc. It's a video game. Not a real war. They could have easily made a conventional victory a logical ending, or a choice at an ending if you have an exceedingly high EMS score, but they decided against it. That's all there is.

No, the backbone of the entire series is the impossible nature of the Reaper threat.  They decided against making conventional victory an option because that would have undermined the whole premise of the game.

It was never stated Sovereign can't be killed, because no one understood how powerful Sovereign was.  When it's finally brought down, it took the entire citadel fleet plus 2 alliance fleets, AND Shepard and Co. killing its avatar in Saren.  Now tell me how, when the Reapers show up a few years later, a "conventional victory" would have been logical.

[Bfler]

sp0ck 06 wrote...



No, the backbone of the entire series is the impossible nature of the Reaper threat.  They decided against making conventional victory an option because that would have undermined the whole premise of the game.

In Star Trek the Borg were also introduced as unbeatable. One cube destroyed a whole fleet of the federation. Then at the end of Voyager the collective was destroyed.

Modifié par Bfler, 28 juin 2012 - 05:05 .

[Kreid]

Darth Asriel wrote...

To everyone who keeps saying we can't beat the Reapers conventionally, and that the crucible is our only hope. That's stupid. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE CRUCIBLE DOES!!!!! Not Hackett, not Liara, not the scientists puttin it together! They aren't even sure it's a weapon. Hackett states he doesn't know what it does, or how it works yet he's sure it's the key to defeating the Reapers..... How??? For all anyone in the game knows, it's a booby trap set by the Reapers! Yet it's our only hope? Stop spouting this nonsense as if it excuses the poor writing and a terrible idea.

It' isn't nosense, you simply can't win against the Reapers because it's mathematically impossible, the races of the Galaxy are simply not powerful enough to do it not conventionally, not by attrition. The Crucible is know to be a weapon which releases a high ammount of energy "capable of unquantifiable destruction", the exact methods are not know but it's the only hope we've got, it's either that or extinction. I think people still don't get that the Sword fleet in the final battle, the combination of all strenght left in the Galaxy was to delay the Reapers until the Crucible docked, no more no less.